Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITIONS

Sunday Trading

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I beg to ask leave to present a petition from the residents of Orpington. My constituents are concerned that any future legislation on Sunday trading and commercial activity should uphold the character of Sunday as a shared and special day for the enjoyment of family life, rest and community worship. The petition is signed by 427 of my constituents and it reads:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do safeguard the uniqueness of the whole of Sunday, both through the requirements of the law, and through the enforcement of the same.

To lie upon the Table.

36 Engineers Regiment

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I have the honour to present a petition signed by 1,200 of my constituents and also by some of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe).
The 36 Engineers Regiment has long been based in Maidstone and is currently under the threat of being moved to Thorney island. My constituents believe that that would be to the detriment of the regiment and the town. The petition reads:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House encourage the Secretary of State for Defence to consider the wishes of both the Regiment and Town and to allow the 36 Engineers to retain their present base.

To lie upon the Table.

Sunday Trading

Miss Ann Widdicombe: I have the honour to present a petition signed by 1,800 of my constituents who are worried about the extension of Sunday trading and the effect that it will have on that day of rest, family life, the community and worship. The petition reads:
Wherefore the Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do safeguard the uniqueness of the whole of Sunday, both through the requirements of the law, and through the enforcement of the same.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Cambridge University Veterinary School

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I beg to ask leave to present a petition, signed by more than 40,000 Cambridge constituents and others, vigorously opposing the proposed closure of the Cambridge university veterinary school. It concludes:
Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will oppose the recommended closure of the school conveyed to the University Grants Committee by the sub-committee chaired by Sir Ralph Riley.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
Although the petition refers to the Cambridge school, the one in Glasgow is also under threat of closure. We also deplore that proposal. I am pleased to say that my petition has also been signed by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) in whose constituency the Glasgow school resides.

To lie upon the Table.

Football Supporters (Identification Cards)

Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to ask leave to present a petition signed by 12,844 supporters of Aston Villa football club and the Football Supporters Association protesting against the proposed plan to introduce identity cards for football supporters. Mr. Speaker, this is the first of 92 such petitions that will be presented to you—one for every Football League club in the land. The petition reads:
we condemn the proposed legislation to force football supporters to carry identification cards, and we believe that a system of identity cards will have little impact on the problem of football-related violence, will hinder football's attempt to attract a new generation of supporters and will lead to the eventual demise of the game as a spectator sport. And your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Government to bring forward proposals which have the support of genuine football supporters. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Adjournment Debates

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to delay the proceedings of the House, but I do not know whether you have had a chance to hear the tapes of last night's Adjournment debate and note the deliberate, organised disruption of that debate. Will you make a statement on Adjournment debates, so that they can be handled in the traditional way, and, if so, when?

Mr. Speaker: I have no present intention of making a statement. I deprecate disruption of any kind, but it is particularly regrettable during the prized Adjournment debate, which is an opportunity for Back-Bench Members to raise matters of constituency interest.

Sunday Sports Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I would not wish the progess of my Bill to be delayed, but, as a shareholder in Aston Villa football club, I can think of no better petition to be presented by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). He and I have been associated with that football club for a long time, and I wish him well.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), who ably moved the Sunday Sports (No. 2) Bill in the last Session of Parliament, and also to Lord Wyatt of Weeford, who moved a similar Bill in another place. Hon. Members will find that I have amended their legislation in two significant respects. In due course, I shall explain the reasons for that.
I shall tell the House about the guiding principle which caused me to enter political life. I have always believed that the people of this country are best able to decide how to run their own lives, and that, by and large, interfering politicians, civil servants, Governments and other do-gooders who put themselves forward as the guardians of public morals and try to tell people what to do are repugnant. I have every faith in the British public. 'Normally, they have pretty good judgment and can decide for themselves how to run their own lives. Provided that someone does not hurt anybody else, it is up to him to decide what to do on a Sunday or any other day.
I am not in favour of sport or gambling on Sunday. I am simply in favour of people being able to decide whether they want to go to sporting events on Sunday, whether they want to organise sporting events on Sunday, and whether to gamble on Sunday. That is not a matter for me or, with respect, for you, Mr. Speaker. It is a matter for individuals to decide. In a free society, it is repugnant to have a nanny state that continually tells us what we should and should not do. Our legislation should be kept to a bare minimum. It should only protect people and not control the great majority and tell them what they should do.
Even my most severe critics would concede that the current legislation is arcane and outdated. The Sunday Observance Act 1780 expressly forbids sporting events for which the public are charged admission to be organised on a Sunday. Those who organise the men's finals day at Wimbledon, the final rounds of most of our major professional and amateur golf championships, the British grand prix, athletic meetings, professional football matches and professional cricket matches on Sunday are breaching the law.
One may well ask, "So what? There has not been a prosecution since 1956. Is it necessary to change the law? Is this not an irrelevant measure?" Every hon. Member should believe in the rule of law. In a free society—a democracy—we must obey the law. We have two choices. We must either prosecute those who break the law, which is clearly absurd and would be immensely unpopular, or we must amend or scrap arcane and outdated laws. That is what I am seeking to do. It is manifestly absurd that otherwise law-abiding people, such as the organisers of sporting events to which I referred, should find themselves breaking the law. I am anxious to change that and to bring them within the law.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Is my hon. Friend aware that 46 per cent. of churchgoers are anxious that the law should be changed because of the anomalous situation?

Mr. MacKay: I shall refer to that point later. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) will forgive me if I do not respond straight away.
It is quite wrong that the organisers of sporting events are breaking the law. From discussions that I have had in the House and elsewhere with supporters and opponents of the measure, I sense that there is general agreement that sporting events should be brought within the law.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend, but does he accept that, by deregulating Sunday piecemeal, he will increase rather than decrease anomalies? Whereas, under his proposals, betting shops will be able to function, grocery shops will not. He is not tidying up the law; he is creating further anomalies.

Mr. MacKay: I shall refer to betting shops in some detail later. I do not see a direct relationship between Sunday trading, which we are not discussing today, and Sunday sport and leisure, which we are discussing. Many of our colleagues who voted against the Sunday trading legislation in the previous Parliament will support me in the Lobby because they believe that it is right that there should be leisure on Sunday and that it is wrong that we should trade on Sunday. They are two distinct issues.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: My hon. Friend is dealing with matters of principle, anomalies and so on with regard to Sunday. I have one specific question. Does he believe that Sunday should be kept special?

Mr. MacKay: As I have said, individuals should decide what they do on a Sunday.
There is general consensus that we should amend or abolish the law on sporting events. A more controversial matter is what we should do about Sunday racing, which is inextricably linked to gambling. There is no suggestion that we can have horse racing without gambling. As somebody who is not closely associated with horse racing, my first reaction was to say that sports should take place on a Sunday if people want to organise them and others wish to attend, but that there should be on-course betting only. That would avoid the problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) referred—the anomaly of having bookmakers open for business in our high streets on a Sunday.
I went to see my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He said, "If you have on-course betting only, you will return to the 1950s. You will return to illegal gambling and racketeering. I, as Home Secretary, could not possibly countenance that. The Government would withdraw their support for your Bill and would do everything possible to oppose it and ensure that it did not proceed." When I am advised by the Home Secretary that that would lead to illegal gambling, I must take note, and the House, too, will want to take note of that. Clearly, Sunday racing can proceed only with on and off-course betting, which means bookmakers being open on a Sunday.
It is worth clarifying the fact that bookmakers would be open on a Sunday between noon and 6.30 pm. They would not be open all day, as some critics have suggested. I


acknowledge that many, including the Keep Sunday Special campaign and other moderate critics who are not Sabbatarians, are worried about bookmaker shops in our high streets and shopping malls being open on a Sunday. The additional clause that I have added, which differentiates this Bill from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley, will restrict gambling to 12 Sundays a year, which will also restrict horse racing to 12 Sundays a year. As the House will readily concede, we are not likely to have horse racing without gambling.
For 40 Sundays a year bookmakers could not be open, and on 12 Sundays between noon and 6.30 pm they could. "Ah," say my critics, "This is the foot in the door. You start with 12 and it will increase." I have noted that point. Whereas initially I was minded to say that Parliament could increase or decrease the 12 Sunday limit by Order in Council, the Bill does not provide for that. If the Bill becomes law and anybody wishes to change the limit, they will have to introduce completely fresh legislation. There is no possibility of quietly and quickly rushing through an order to increase that limit.
There are 59 race courses in this country. The Jockey Club advises me that it is unlikely that there would be more than three meetings per Sunday. Three times 12 makes 36. Therefore, a number of race courses will never be open on a Sunday. If some race courses have two or three meetings a year on a Sunday, a majority of race courses will possibly never have racing on a Sunday.
Moderate opponents of the Bill make a further criticism. They ask whether people who live near sporting grounds and race courses will be affected. Apart from horse racing, other sporting events are already taking place on a Sunday. The law is being breached and ignored, and there have been no prosecutions. If more football clubs want to change their fixtures from Saturday to Sunday they will do so whether or not the Bill is passed. The only change that the Bill makes in practice is that there would be horse racing on 12 Sundays a year, at no race course more than once or twice and at a majority not at all. Therefore, the argument that my measure would lead to greater nuisance for people who live near sporting stadiums is invalid.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: When the hon. Gentleman discussed with the Jockey Club the implications of Sunday racing and the number of fixtures did he ask how many fixtures might take place on a bank holiday Sunday?

Mr. MacKay: I did not. That is entirely a matter for the Jockey Club. It is the governing body and can decide. The hon. Gentleman, who takes a great interest in horse racing, knows that a limited number of horses, jockeys and trainers are available, so logistically it would be impossible to have every race course open on a Sunday. I am advised by the Jockey Club that for practical reasons it is unlikely that there can normally be more than three race meetings on a Sunday.

Mr. Duffy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are already a dozen or more fixtures on more than one bank holiday Monday? Those fixtures are already running into double figures. Is it not conceivable that some, if not most, will spill over to Sunday, given the attractions that the Jockey Club now attaches to Sunday racing?

Mr. MacKay: That is for the Jockey Club to decide. Logistically there cannot be a large number of horse race meetings on two consecutive days because the horses are not available. The hon. Gentleman will confirm that.
That brings me to another interesting point. There are not likely to be additional meetings or sporting events in any sport, just a change of dates. There are enough people going to football grounds, as the right hon. Member for Small Heath will recall—even at Birmingham City—to disturb those who live near the grounds. That disturbance will be moved from a Saturday to a Sunday. It is having a disruption at any time that offends them, not having it on a particular day of the week. So the House will need to address that matter at another time.
Every horse racing country, with the exception of Great Britain and New Zealand, has Sunday racing. It appears to be most popular in France, Italy and, most recently, the Republic of Ireland. The House will agree that those countries are deeply religious. There is absolutely no doubt that there is greater religious observance there than there ever is in Great Britain. That confirms the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East. There is nothing unchristian about enjoying a Sunday. There is nothing anomalous in worshiping in the morning and seeing Aston Villa play in the afternoon. There is nothing unreasonable about gambling in the afternoon and going on to Evensong, particularly if one puts most of one's winnings in the collection.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: In developing his argument about racing on Sunday, is my hon. Friend aware that churchgoing per head in France is far higher than here? Perhaps the most attractive part of racing on Sunday in France is the large presence of families and children. It is part of the French way of life to worship in the morning, have an agreeable family lunch and go racing—excellent provisions are made for children—in the afternoon.
I have no doubt that racecourses in Great Britain would seek to provide exactly the same facilities, which is more than can be said for any other sports.

Mr. MacKay: I entirely agree. My hon. Friend makes the point very well about the large number of people who go to church in France—in fact, it is a family occasion. The more that sporting events can be a family occasion the better. I can think of no better way of spending a Sunday than going to a sporting event.
Of course, the killjoys will disagree. When Dr. Donald Coggan was Archbishop of Canterbury, he said:
a Christian is not a killjoy. If he is, he ought to question whether he's a Christian.
I would ask the House to consider what Dr. Coggan said. I can see no connection between being a practising Christian and a Sabbatarian and opposing leisure facilities on a Sunday. It makes no sense.
Moderate critics have raised another worry, which I have covered in a second additional clause to the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley. It is what I would deem an employment protection clause. There are those who believe that it would be possible for existing employees, who decline to work on a Sunday, to be dismissed. Frankly, I am doubtful about that. We can look at the Scottish experience of Sunday trading. The complaint of most employers is that far more of their employees want to work on a. Sunday than there are jobs available. The discrimination is that employees say to their


employers, "You have chosen your favourites to work on a Sunday and get double time and a day off in the week. Why have you not chosen me?" I acknowledge, however, that there are those who fear dismissal. My employment protection clause, therefore, clearly states that no existing employee can be dismissed for declining to work on a Sunday.
Horse racing will be the only addition to the sports that take place on a Sunday, and many people in that sport already work on a Sunday. With Sunday racing on the Continent, many or most jockeys race, and almost all trainers and stable lads already work on a Sunday. Few of those would have their lives radically changed.

Mr. Robert Banks: My hon. Friend has concentrated entirely on horse racing. Will he say whether his Bill would permit dog racing on Sundays?

Mr. MacKay: My Bill covers all Sunday sports. However, I have received no indication from those involved in dog racing that they have any desire to race dogs on a Sunday. I have deliberately had endless contacts with every interested party on this controversial issue, but I have not heard from those involved in dog racing.
I hope that you will not rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because what I am about to say is not directly relevant to the Bill. There is a real worry about the stable lads. I have received very powerful representations from the Stable Lads Association and I have also met representatives of the Transport and General Workers Union. The case put forward by the Stable Lads Association is a strong one. As somebody who is not involved in the racing industry, I find it amazing, and anomalous, that there is a terrific amount of money in the industry—substantial amounts of prize money and substantial amounts of money changing hands when good horses are sold—but that stable lads are just about the worst-paid people anywhere in the country. I am appalled by their conditions of service, the hours that they work, and their pay.

Mr. Richard Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the position of stable lads. Does my hon. Friend feel that during the past nine years the Horserace Betting Levy Board has been negligent in its duty in the way in which it hands out the money that is collected from bookmakers to put back into the industry? It has complete control over that money, but it fails miserably to look after the lot of the stable lads, who, incidentally, have to work on a Sunday with or without my hon. Friend's Bill, because they must feed and clean out the horses?

Mr. MacKay: I agree with my hon. Friend that, of course, on a rota system stable lads must exercise and feed the horses. I do not believe that this is an appropriate time to say how the matter will be resolved, but I feel that it is important that the House returns at a later date to tackle this subject properly. People with expert knowledge, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), would then be able to speak on the matter, and action would be taken.
I want to leave the House with my clear impressions as an outsider. Perhaps it is more significant when someone not involved in the racing industry mentions the working

conditions of stable lads than it is when someone who has a vested or constituency interests mentions those matters. I have no stable lads in my suburban constituency. A terrific amount of money is washing around within horse racing, but, at the same time, a group of dedicated people are being appallingly treated. I suggest to the business managers—I can see the Government Whip on the Front Bench-that there should be an opportunity for hon. Members on both sides of the House—I believe there is terrific agreement—to discuss the matter further.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I sympathise with much that the hon. Gentleman has said. He would perhaps have been better introducing a Bill that would improve the lot of the stable lads. How can we really be justified in making special provisions for those who work in the racing industry and in the betting shops, but not protect the other workers who must work on a Sunday? That appears anomalous.

Mr. MacKay: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. My employment protection clause covers anybody connected with Sunday sports. It could just as easily affect someone who was working for a football or a tennis club. It does not concern only horse racing.

Mr. Martlew: rose—

Mr. MacKay: No, I shall not give way. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye and make his own contribution.
I know many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to speak and I shall finish, as I started, by saying that I believe in freedom of choice. People know best how to run their own lives, and the House would do well to pass this measure of deregulation and trust the people.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I do not believe that this is the right time to introduce a Bill of this kind. I thought so, too, when Lord Wyatt introduced a similar measure in the other place—and I told him so. The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) will recall that before he introduced his Bill to the House I invited him to withdraw it, because I again believed that it was not an appropriate time, and its assured defeat would only set back the cause of Sunday racing unnecessarily. I maintain the same views about the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay).
Those within the racing industry also share my belief that timing is important. I am vice-chairman of the all-party racing and bloodstock industries group and I serve under the distinguished chairmanship of the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) for whom I have affection as well as respect. We work together harmoniously but we disagree about this matter.
The hon. Member for Berkshire, East is not the right person to introduce such a Bill. Such a sensitive issue calls for careful handling and there are only a few hon. Members—[Interruption.] Well, the hon. Gentleman could not have invited more unnecessary controversy in recent weeks if he had tried. He has generated controversy in that quarter of the population from whom he could not have relied upon for support and, after a moment's, consideration he should have realised that such a group could retaliate once this Bill was introduced. That


unnecessary controversy in no way detracts from his integrity or his effective parliamentary skills. Nevertheless in recent weeks his judgment has slipped a little.
There are not many hon. Members who are qualified to introduce such a Bill. It must be someone who understands racing, commands the confidence of both sides of the House and the confidence of the Labour movement. It is not enough for the hon. Member for Berkshire, East to say that the wages of stable lads are appalling, he should be closer to that part of the industry. Having been drawn number four in the ballot for private Members' Bills, he should not simply have taken up this issue as a suitable vehicle, he should have been identified with the cause in advance.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: The hon. Gentleman has said that I was not associated with the cause in advance, but my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) will confirm that, last year, I was one of the sponsors of his Bill. An alternative argument to that advanced by the hon. Gentleman has been put to me by people in the racing industry who claim that it would not be helpful if such a Bill was introduced by someone whom outsiders saw as having a vested interest and that it would be more helpful if that person was neutral. Although the hon. Gentleman and I have devoted much of our speeches to horse racing, which is the most controversial part of the Bill, he should bear in mind that that is only one element of the Bill, which covers all sports.

Mr. Duffy: It is also important to have a feel for the subject matter. The hon. Gentleman has claimed that his credentials rest on being a sponsor of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Crawley. Eleven other hon. Members are sponsors of the Bill that has been proposed today, but only three of them are present. Prior to drawing number four in the private Members' ballot, the hon. Member for Berkshire, East never came near the all-party racing group nor those Labour Members who are closely involved with some of the problems with which the hon. Gentleman has expressed commendable sympathy.
My belief that the hon. Member for Berkshire, East is the wrong person to introduce such a Bill also rests on an article that appeared in The Racing Post three weeks ago when he described racing as "boring". It all adds up to a lack of conviction, credibility and acceptability to both sides of the House which, to my mind, cannot but seriously prejudice his chances of success today.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am listening with some incredulity to these objections. I am a sponsor of the Bill and if the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) gets a Second Reading for his Bill today I wonder whether he would kindly hand the Bill over to me so that I can take it through the House? I wonder whether that would meet the objections raised by my hon. Friend and we could proceed without further difficulties?

Mr. Duffy: No. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) stimulates me into revealing to the House that he was a close adviser to Lord Wyatt and we know what happened to his Bill. As far as I am aware, my right hon. Friend had no supporters on the Labour Benches for that Bill.

Mr. Denis Howell: rose—

Mr. Duffy: No, we shall leave it at that because of time. I do not want to be penalised by the Chair.

Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is guilt by association lawful in this House?

Mr. Duffy: It was more than association, it was advice. No one was more surprised than my right hon. Friend when he realised how many of his hon. Friends were opposed to him.

Sir Charles Morrison: The hon. Gentlernan said that we all know what happened to the Bill introduced by Lord Wyatt—what happened what that it achieved a Third Reading in the House in which it started.

Mr. Duffy: I will say no more about Lord Wyatt except, in common with the hon. Member for Berkshire, East, he was the wrong person at the wrong time and I told him so. Lord Wyatt's Bill would not be accepted if it reached the House.
The hon. Member for Berkshire, East has provided the House with the wrong brief and his presentation is indistinguishable from a Jockey Club brief—in recent years its judgment on this matter has been deplorable and I have told it so.
The hon. Gentleman displays a woeful ignorance of the structure of racing, its organisation and the present opinion within the industry on Sunday racing. In the absence of Sunday racing, he believes that the industry is placed at a "severe disadvantage" compared with other sports, but the reverse is true. No spectator sport enjoys greater exposure than racing, which takes place on every weekday—most days it takes place at more than one venue. There are evening meetings during the summer and on bank holidays, as I have already reminded the hon. Gentleman, the number of racing fixtures runs into double figures. According to the last annual report from the Jockey Club's senior steward. Lord Fairhaven, racing
has rarely looked so challenging and exciting".
He says that with attendances, betting turnover and prize money all on the increase
racing is in an exceptionally healthy state".
Therefore the racing industry is not desperate for the Bill.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I do not want to keep interrupting the hon. Gentleman's speech and I hope that this will be the last time that I do so. The hon. Gentleman has said that I do not appear to be in touch or to understand people involved with horse racing and they do not share my views. I have corresponded, spoken to or met every possible organisation within horse racing. They are all strongly in favour of my Bill with two exceptions. One is the Transport and General Workers Union—my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will confirm its opposition as he was at the meeting. The other exception is the Stable Lads Association which has serious reservations about the Bill, some of which I have acknowledged today. Everyone else is in favour and, with the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is possible that I am more in touch with the industry than he is.

Mr. Duffy: I shall be surprised if the hon. Gentleman is able to sustain that argument after he hears the rest of my speech.
The hon. Gentleman has sought to draw an unfavourable comparison between Britain and other countries where racing takes place. In terms of fixtures, however, the British racegoer is much better provided for


than those in other countries—I only wish that our racegoers were as well provided with facilities. No doubt the hon. Gentleman has noticed that, during the past six months, The Times has published a weekly guide to racecourses. I am sure that he has read some of the biting criticisms in those surveys to which I shall return later.
The pattern of racing at home is different from that found in the countries mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman has recognised that the success of Sunday racing rests on the willing co-operation of the 100,000 people engaged in the racing and betting industries. Apart from consulting the Jockey Club I wonder how thoroughly the hon. Gentleman has sought to discover the opinion of the racing industry? Did the hon. Gentleman consult the Horserace Betting Levy Board?

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Yes.

Mr. Duffy: Did he consult the Racegoers Club?

Mr. MacKay: Yes.

Mr. Duffy: Did he consult the Betting Office Licensees Association?

Mr. MacKay: Yes.

Mr. Duffy: Did he consult the National Association of Bookmakers?

Mr. MacKay: Yes.

Mr. Duffy: Did he consult the Stable Lads Association?

Mr. MacKay: Yes.

Mr. Duffy: Did he consult the Transport and General Workers Union?

Mr. MacKay: Yes.

Mr. Duffy: Did he consult the Racehorse Owners Association?

Mr. MacKay: Yes. It is in my constituency.

Mr. Duffy: The hon. Gentleman should be careful not to guffaw too soon. Did he consult the National Trainers Federation?

Mr. MacKay: Yes.

Mr. Duffy: Did the hon. Gentleman consult the Jockeys Association?

Mr. MacKay: Yes.

Mr. Duffy: Did he consult the Jockeys' Valets Association?

Mr. MacKay: I am not sure.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): That is one out of 20.

Mr. Duffy: Did the hon. Gentleman consult the Racecourse Staff Association—the men who man the gates? Well, did he? Silence. The hon. Gentleman claimed that of the bodies he consulted he found only two who were opposed to the Bill. However, my chairman, the hon. Member for Devizes, and I attended the last conference of the industry held on this subject less than 18 months ago

at Sandown park. The hon. Member for Devizes will confirm—because he is familiar with the record which I have here—that more than two of the organisations on the list of the hon. Member for Berkshire, East came out against Sunday racing before this most representative gathering of the industry. More than two qualified their position, as I shall show.
The Horserace Betting Levy Board asked if racing was united and—as I have done—if this was the right time to introduce Sunday racing. The Betting Office Licensees Associaton said that there should be no compensatory blank day, but the National Trainers Federation thought that there would have to be one. To some of us, that seemed to torpedo the case for Sunday racing.

Mr. Soames: Why?

Mr. Duffy: Why is there such anxiety for Sunday racing if there has to be another blank day in lieu of Sunday?
Did the hon. Member for Berkshire, East consult the staff of the Betting Office Licensees Association, as distinct from the TGWU? It is true that the TGWU organises both sets of staff but it tends to be identified with the stable lads. Did the hon. Gentleman consult the staff of the betting offices? They firmly oppose the Bill.

Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that the whole of Sunday racing should be run by a sort of cartel of people who would get together to decide whether there should be racing on certain days. The Bill does not suggest for a moment that anyone should be made to race on Sunday. If people do not want to, they need not.

Mr. Duffy: The stable lads, under the leadership of Bill Adams—as opposed to the TGWU—told the conference that 95 per cent. of its members voted against Sunday racing. They oppose the present pay structure, the unacceptable pay deal for evening racing which gives them little, or sometimes no, overtime, and the small payment—

Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman is speaking entirely about racing. The Bill before us is about Sunday sport. Let us take the hon. Gentleman's argument to its logical conclusion—did the professional Football Association consult anyone before starting to play football on Sundays? Did anyone go round asking the men who man the turnstiles whether they wanted Sunday football? As the hon. Gentleman is against racing on Sunday, would he also seek to enforce the law and ban all other sports that take place on Sundays?

Mr. Duffy: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's inquiry can be found in a booklet published by Raymond P. Lang on behalf of the Keep Sunday Special campaign.

Mr. Andrew Mackay: Before he leaves this subject, will the hon. Gentleman answer this question: does he think that it is purely my advocacy that has caused people to write to me with a completely different view from the one that he says that they put forward at the meeting at Sandown park 18 months ago; or does he think that they are all lying to me in their letters?

Mr. Duffy: The hon. Gentleman must make up his own mind on that matter. I have already shown the House a considerable and growing discrepancy between his earlier claims and my findings, from which his hon. Friend the Member for Devizes cannot and, I know will not, dissent.
The National Trainers Federation entertains reservations, not only about the possible blank day but about costs and staff redeployment. The Jockeys Association thought there should be a blank day, possibly, Monday, on which there could be evening racing. It was concerned about the possibility of traffic jams on bank holiday Mondays.
The Jockeys' Valets Association was against the Bill because it thought that seven days work would erode family life. Interestingly, the Racegoers Club said that 78 per cent. of its members were in favour but warned that attendances would not rise dramatically because they would drop between Monday and Friday. It did not believe the Bill would increase opportunities to generate increased spending throughout the industry over the week.
The hon. Member for Berkshire, East will accept that the industry is not united on this matter. Important components of it are either against the idea or have strong reservations about it. The hon. Gentleman also said that it was vitally important that no one working in racing should feel exploited or he denied the opportunity of consultation. However, in a recent survey by The Times, the facilities for stable staff at Wolverhampton racecourse were described as a disgrace. A recent survey, not by the Jockey Club but by a trade union, discovered that mattresses in the lads' hostel were dirty and showed signs of bedwetting.

Mr. Holt: What does that have to do with it?

Mr. Duffy: It has this to do with it—when, only recently, the Jockey Club set up a working party on Sunday racing, it could not be bothered to invite the stable lads' representatives—either Bill Adams or the TGWU—to join it. That is how important my example is.
The hon. Member for Berkshire, East said that no one in racing should feel exploited or be denied the opportunity of consultation, but to that I would add that no one should feel neglected. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Crawley—who described the idyllic conditions at Longchamp—believe that racecourses can provide family entertainment. In the view of the Horserace Betting Levy Board we shall not see those conditions here until hooliganism has been dealt with. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on—try harder."] I shall come on. I do not have to try any harder because there is enough evidence of the growing incidence not only of hooliganism but of loutish behaviour and violence. Last year there was a fatal stabbing of a racegoer at Newmarket.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting a membership scheme?

Mr. Duffy: Bookmakers have been assaulted at Redcar, Haydock and York. Even at such fashionable courses as Ascot, Lingfield and Goodwood there has been drunkenness and hooliganism, despite the best efforts of the Jockey Club to stamp out such problems.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman is raising an important point that is of great concern to the industry and to the people who run racecourses. Does he accept—even in the middle of his bilious little speech—that the Jockey Club and the racing authorities throughout the country acknowledge the problem? They have taken important, prompt and effective steps to ensure that, where possible, such problems do not arise, and they will take any necessary further steps. As the hon. Gentleman

well knows, the thrust of his argument is entirely negative. It is not a reason in any sense for not proceeding with the Bill.

Mr. Duffy: I said that despite the best efforts of the Jockey Club to stamp out such behaviour the number of incidents has been growing.

Mr. Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Duffy: No, because I wish to proceed with my speech. I shall give those hon. Members, who have not spoken a chance to intervene, but I hope that those hon. Members who have already intervened will allow me to proceed.
The hon. Member for Berkshire, East claimed that racing is now ripe for family entertainment. The Horserace Betting Levy Board takes the view that that is not so, and in view of the evidence that I have given to the House it is quite demonstrably not ripe for family entertainment. The hon. Gentleman said that he had been influenced by racegoers interviewed on a racecourse, but he has not taken the trouble to consult those who live near racecourses and who will be most affected. I have done that and I can tell the House that such people object very strongly to the traditional peace of their Sunday afternoons being disturbed in this way. They ask, "Can we not have one day free?" I now come to what seems to be the strongest argument made by the hon. Gentleman, the matter of choice.

Mr. Holt: Has the hon. Gentleman discovered from his researches which racecourse has the most days' racing per year? As a consequence of the Bill that course would have one more day's racing per year. How can the people in the neighbourhood of that course be materially affected if at the moment the maximum number of days out of 365 on which they can be disturbed is probably 18?

Mr. Duffy: I have no doubt that when research in the neighbourhood of racecourses similar to that undertaken in the area of football grounds is available to us we shall find the same results. The hon. Member for Berkshire, East settled for an interview of racegoers carried out at Haydock park. My consultations with people who live near racecourses, which did not depend on second hand research, show that those people will be as much opposed to Sunday racing as people who live near football grounds are opposed to Sunday football.
I shall now return to what seemed to be the strongest point made by the hon. Member for Berkshire, East—the one about choice. A balance needs to be maintained. Freedom to pursue leisure interests for some involves others in the obligation of work. A meeting called by the Transport and General Workers Union at Newmarket a year ago attracted the attendance of Bill Adams arid prompted a report. The report says:
One lad caught the mood of the meeting when he said: 'I think we are going to be told "there is Sunday racing and you must work", rather than us having any choice in the matter.
I want to be at home with my family, not working. A day off during the week is no good, because wives are working and kids are at school.'
In many important respects that simple contribution from the stable lad says more than any of us will say in the debate for that side of the argument.
When racing is on an ordinary day it will become an ordinary working day for many people, in addition lo those employed in racing. Can we not have one day free


from normal pressures to provide opportunities for rest, recreation, reflection and worship? Must all seven days of the week now become the same? Of course, recreation, leisure pursuits and social habits have changed. They may now involve some of us in travel and organised recreation, but there is a balance to be kept. There is more to social life than trading, commerce and betting and in opening betting shops in the high street especially for the purpose, irrespective of the wishes of the staff in those betting shops. I challenge the hon. Member for Crawley to repeat what he said sotto voce to his hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East a moment ago. I thought I heard him say, "Quite right."

Mr. Soames: What I said was, "Hear, hear." The hon. Gentleman is getting so carried away with his bile that he is losing track of what other Members have said. I agree that proper arrangements have to be made for people who work on Sunday. Does he admit that part of his bitch against Sunday racing is that the Ladbroke organisation will not allow TGWU membership in its branches? I remember a senior official of the TGWU telling me plainly that if we were able to square this away we could have the Bill without any opposition from the TGWU. How does the hon. Gentleman answer that?

Mr. Duffy: I know what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Ladbroke and especially its chairman, are only part of the problem. Unfortunately there is a bigger problem here and it is coming across. I say with the greatest respect that some Conservative Members are giving the impression that there will be Sunday racing irrespective of the wishes of the people who are most directly involved, and especially the wishes of stable lads and others, such as the staff of betting shops who are organised by the Transport and General Workers' Union.
There must be a balance, not only within the industry but between the industry and the rest of society. Genuine humanism requires such a perspective. That is confirmed by the Christian vision of Sunday. For all its shortcomings the regulated Sunday is a sign that points society beyond itself and affords people the opportunity to stand back and renew themselves. That is the meaning of recreation. It is not horse racing, motor racing, cricket, football or cinemas. That is the view of 1,800 people across the city of Sheffield who have signed these petitions and have asked me to convey their views to the House.
Those people believe that there is another view of Sunday that is precious, has served this country well and needs to be retained. For racing on Sunday to become a practical possibility there must be, first, greater unity in the industry, such as that which the Horserace Betting Levy Board has called for. Secondly, there must be such improvement in the working conditions as is acceptable to the labour movement. Thirdly, there must be a more sensitive approach by the promoters of the Bill to the social consequences. Fourthly and finally, there must be reassurances for the churches and for those hon. Members who wish to preserve our traditional Sunday. We must not simply dismiss those people, as the hon. Member for Berkshire, East has done, as sabbatarian zealots. The hon. Gentleman does not meet those requirements and neither does his Bill. I shall vote against it.

Sir Charles Morrison: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) has the best interests of racing at heart. I well know that because, as he has told the House, he is vice chairman of the racing committee of which I have the honour to be chairman. I also know that the hon. Gentleman has done a great deal on behalf of racing, especially in the north of England. Therefore, it is with considerable regret that I have to take him to task and strongly disagree with him on the Bill. He is misjudging the situation to a considerable extent.
The hon. Member for Attercliffe said that this is not the right time to introduce the Bill, but by the end of his speech I was no clearer about when the right time would be. He said that my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) was not the right person to introduce the Bill. I entirely disagree. In my judgment my hon. Friend spoke as a very good constituency Member of Parliament. After all, in his constituency he has one of the three or four major racecourses at which there are a considerable number of race meetings during the year. He has taken the trouble to obtain the reactions of his constituents who live in the vicinity of the racecourse and he has concluded—I am not sure whether it was unanimous—that a large number and certainly a fair majority—

Mr. Andrew MacKay: It was a huge majority and virtually unanimous.

Sir Charles Morrison: Certainly a majority favour Sunday racing. I would go further than that. Far from being unsuitable to support his Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East is a much more suitable hon. Member to introduce the Bill than someone who might be described as a racing Member.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East has not been influenced by any subjective, partisan or pro-racing thoughts. He is reported as saying that racing bores him. Therefore he clearly has the interests of his constituents and other members of the public at heart, in spite of his being bored with the sport.
My hon. Friend has reached an objective judgment about the right of his constituents to do what they want on a Sunday. On the other hand, it is quite clear that he will have taken account of any opposition among his constituents before he concluded that he wanted to sponsor the Bill.
Taking all those considerations into account, the foremost evidence of the support for the Bill is the fact that my hon. Friend has decided to introduce it once again. I do not detract from the splendid job performed by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) last year. He was a kind of John the Baptist in this respect. The Bill has a better chance of reaching fruition as people interested in Sunday sport, and particularly in racing, have had more time to consider the Bill's pros and cons.
It seemed rather excessive for the hon. Member for Attercliffe to assume that there should be unanimous support for the Bill from everyone who has anything to do with racing or from every member of the public. If this House worked on that basis, no legislation would be passed.

Mr. Holt: What a good thing.

Sir Charles Morrison: Well, that is almost a good thing, but not quite.
With one exception, the Bill regularises what is happening already in the light of changing social conditions. Sunday sports have become a tradition. It may be a tradition which did not exist 20 years ago, but in recent years people have traditionally enjoyed some form of Sunday sport for which they have paid, either legally or illegally—and very often the latter.
If the Bill's opponents feel so strongly, why have they not tried to initiate prosecutions under the Sunday Observance Act 1780? Why has the Lord's Day Observance Society not done that? Does it want to stop the final of the Open golf, or Wimbledon or Henley Royal regatta? Does it want to stop Sunday cricket or Sunday football? Does it not have the courage of its own convictions? Or does it realise that it would have very little public support, and if it acted it would create a major wave of public indignation and hostility?
In truth, I suspect that the Lord's Day Observance Society knows as well as the rest of us that it is no more than an anachronistic facade dedicated solely to opposing the entainment and freedom of other people. My hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East referred to the more moderate Keep Sunday Special campaign. It is worth mentioning in passing that a publication produced last year entitled "The Sunday Sport Question" by Mr. Simon Jones contained a foreword by the Right Rev. David Sheppard, the Bishop of Liverpool. The foreword's first sentence reads:
As Christians we have no right to impose our values on the whole of society.
I think that he is absolutely right. Of course he went on to qualify that statement. However, I agree with his opening statement. That was a reasonable way of approaching the question whether sport on Sunday should be legalised.

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend has just referred to the fact that Christians should not seek to impose their standards on the rest of society, and a similar comment was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay). Does my hon. Friend accept that the opposition to deregulation measures for Sundays comes from much wider quarters than just Christians? It also comes from workers who are concerned about their days of rest and from people who want a traditional Sunday. The opposition is somewhat broader than he has given it credit for.

Sir Charles Morrison: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. There is some opposition to this measure, not just from active Christians, but from a range of people. However, the same is true of every measure that passes through the House. There is no compulsion in the Bill. It simply provides a certain number of people with an opportunity to do what they want on Sunday in the same way as the people described by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) have the opportunity to do what they want on Sunday.
I want now to consider the exception in the Bill relating to the legalisation of existing Sunday sports—explicitly betting and implicitly horse racing. Is horse racing wanted on Sunday? The evidence is that it is. Last year, before the Bill reached the light of day, there was considerable discussion. The Jockey Club had undertaken a comprehensive inquiry and concluded that there was strong support for Sunday racing.
A recent survey on Sunday horse racing showed that 51 per cent. of those questioned said that Sunday racing

should be allowed and another 20 per cent. said that they did not mind whether it happened, or they had no opinion. In other words, 71 per cent, of those questioned were in favour of, or not opposed to it. Obviously those figures show that 29 per cent. said that Sunday racing should not be allowed.

Mr. Martlew: With regard to opinion polls, is the hon. Gentleman aware that 75 per cent. of the population of this country are against the privatisation of water? I suspect that that will not stop it getting through the House.

Sir Charles Morrison: I do not believe that opinion polls are the be-all or end-all, but they provide a guide. Whereas 75 per cent. may be against the privatisation of water now—no doubt many will change their minds in the fullness of time—in relation to this Bill we start with the knowledge that 71 per cent. of the public are in favour of, or not opposed to, Sunday racing. The only conclusion that I can draw from that is that the arguments in favour of the Sunday Sports Bill are infinitely greater than those in favour of the privatisation of water.

Mr. Stuart Randall: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a strong linkage between Sunday racing and the need for off-course betting shops to be open?

Sir Charles Morrison: I accept that there is a strong linkage. The Government have said that if there is to be Sunday racing, there must be off-course betting—and, therefore, betting shops must be open.
A questionnaire enclosed in a race card for a meeting at Warwick on Easter Monday last year asked,
If racing is introduced on Sundays, will you visit Warwick more often?
In response to that question, 124 people answered yes, 28 answered no, and there was one "Don't know." My hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East spoke about public support for racing in other countries. In France, it is much greater than on the average weekday. In Ireland, where Sunday racing was only recently introduced, the same is true.

Mr. Robert Banks: The French do a lot of things that we do not do, and one of them is shooting game on Sunday. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that, if we follow the French, we should also alter our laws so that game may be shot on Sunday?

Sir Charles Morrison: No, I am not saying that we should automatically follow the French, in doing something that they do. I am saying only that in countries where there is Sunday racing there is more support for it than there is for racing on an ordinary weekday.

Mr. Duffy: That is because, in those other countries, there is not racing every weekday.

Sir Charles Morrison: They may not race every weekday, but they do on some weekdays.
There cannot be horse racing without betting, and that is the crunch for many people who oppose gambling on Sunday. However, there is already Sunday gambling, so I find that argument difficult to accept. On Sundays, casinos and bingo halls are allowed to open, and credit betting is available to those who are well enough off to enjoy it. The only people who cannot make a bet on a horse race on Sunday are those who do not have the facility of credit


betting. That is nonsensical in 1989, when most people can legally go to a bingo hall, or can pour money into a fruit machine.
Another aspect that must be considered is the arrival of satellite television, because, as that becomes more prominent in everyday life, more racing will be transmitted from countries that stage Sunday race meetings and will be seen in British homes. The consequence will be that those who enjoy credit betting facilities will indulge in their desire to bet. What will people do who if they do not have that facility? It is an odds-on certainty that unless people are given a legal opportunity to make their bets in betting shops, there will be a renewed growth of illegal betting. That is a point to which the Government must pay considerable attention in forming their attitude to the Bill.
As for employment and those who work in racing and allied industries, my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East has already referred to the protection that the Bill provides. Paragraph I of the scheule to the Bill states that
Subject to paragraph 3 below, the dismissal of an employee who is employed in a licensed betting office or in connection with sport and was so employed on the day before the commencement date shall be regarded as unfair for the purposes of Part V of Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.
It is not only the person employed in a betting office or in a stable, not only the stable lad or the racing staff, but, presumably, also the man who drives the horse box to the meeting who will be protected. the schedule provides considerable protection.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Gentleman skipped very quickly over the words
and was so employed on the day before the commencement date".
That is a closing door form of protection that applies to people already employed in the industry, but not to anyone who subsequently enters it.

Sir Charles Morrison: Anyone who enters a new form of employment should know beforehand what are his working conditions. Having entered that employment, the employee then knows what to expect, in the same way that a waiter in a restaurant knows that he has to work on Saturdays, but is protected if the law is changed and he does not wish to observe a new requirement to work on Sundays. Anyone entering a new form of employment knows what are the conditions, and enters it with eyes open.

Mr. Holt: When I was director of personnel for the William Hill organisation 25 years ago, all new employees were told that they were liable to work on Sundays. That was because, in those days, we had a large business in fixed odds football pools that had to be checked on Sundays.

Sir Charles Morrison: My hon. Friend emphasises the validity of my argument, and demonstrates that, for a long time, people have been required to work on Sundays in relation to one aspect of the betting industry.
The success of Sunday racing will depend on the good will of all those employed in racing and in related industries. That good will shall be forthcoming only if their pay and conditions of work are adequate. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East laid such stress on that point. I believe that a larger return from

the levy would be the main and best means of bringing more money into racing. That money would gradually feed through to the benefit of everybody employed in the industry. I equally believe that if Sunday racing were to be supported in this country to the extent that it is in every other racing country where it occurs—which is every country except New Zealand—it will follow that Sunday racing itself will bring in a little more money to the benefit of all those employed in the industry.
It is important to put the Bill in its proper perspective. It is an important Bill for racing, and it will remove the fear of prosecution and the dislike of acting in breach of the law felt by the organisers of sports that are already enjoyed on Sundays. In national terms, the effect of the Bill will be virtually unnoticed. There will be 12 Sundays, on each of which there will be three race meetings, making a total of 36 meetings spread over 59 racecourses. Twenty-three courses, therefore, will never have a Sunday meeting. That number may be even larger, because certain courses may hold two or more meetings. In the holiday season, one or two seaside race courses may hold two Sunday meetings, but that will be a matter for the judgment of the Jockey Club and for the owners of the various racecourses.
Overall, I believe that Sunday racing will have a minimal impact on non-racing people. I am convinced that there will be Sunday racing sooner or later, and there is no better time for it to start than now.

11 am

Mr. John McFall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) on the way in which he introduced the Bill and his skilled advocacy of it. I am profoundly against his Bill, but he made an excellent speech. He stuck to the arguments, and I shall endeavour to do so myself. This is a short Bill and—

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that you normally take points of order on Fridays at 11 o'clock, especially on issues that hon. Members think are of grave importance. You will recall, having been here in the early hours of the morning, at 10 past 12, the disruption caused by Conservative Members during the Adjournment debate. Have you taken up this matter with Mr. Speaker? If so, has he made any decision about what future attitude will be taken by the Chair about points of order when an hon. Member is speaking on the Adjournment particularly on a Thursday night, which is when Mr. Speaker makes the selection, and has been interrupted for the best part of the half an hour allowed for the Adjournment debate? Could you inform the House, for future reference, whether a decision has been reached?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): This matter was raised with Mr. Speaker on a point of order, at the beginning of the proceedings this morning, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to read Mr. Speaker's comments in Hansard tomorrow.

Mr. McFall: This is a short Bill of four simple clauses, but it has immense implications and complex ramifications. It would appear innocuous in itself, in that it requests that
The entertainments and amusements to which the Sunday Observance Act 1780 applies shall not include any race, athletic sports or other sporting event.


It could be seen as a stalking horse, whether wittingly or unwittingly, for Sunday trading. That is the implication, and that is the next step along from the Bill.
Some say that the Bill would introduce a creeping growth in unfettered Sunday commercial sport and its links to Sunday trading. Against the Bill is a coalition made up of churches, trade unions, retail groups, trade organisations and communities, so that the opposition goes across the spectrum. They are opposed to the Bill because they feel that, if it is passed, the traditional character of Sunday will be fundamentally and irreversibly changed.

Mr. Holt: Has the traditional Sunday in Scotland been changed as a result of not having trading regulations on a Sunday?

Mr. McFall: Yes it has. The issue in Scotland is not relevant to the debate because Scotland was not included in the Shops Bill because the drafters overlooked it, assuming that Scotland, being a Presbyterian country, would not need the restrictions which they thought appropriate for England. That situation held until 10 years ago, when certain major firms—mostly English-based retailers—decided that it was worth while to take advantage of the loophole in the law of Scotland. Therefore, the position of Scotland is different, and we cannot compare it with that in England.
The Bill will allow shops to be open on Sunday, and if some shops are open the floodgates of complete deregulation will be open, with all its attendant problems. Those who want the Bill advocate deregulation. Hon. Members have referred to questionnaires and have said that a certain percentage of people are in favour of the Bill, but I should like any questionnaire about Sunday trading to be linked to a complementary one about working on Sunday.
When the Auld committee considered the implications of the Shops Bill, it realised that there were many difficulties in the protection of shopworkers. In 1986, the late Earl of Stockton, speaking in the Committee on the Shops Bill, said:
The Bill is meant to make it possible for people to trade freely on Sundays … It is not meant to make life more difficult for shop assistants. It is not meant to make the conditions of their labour worse. I am not talking now about the kind of shops that probably will not open on a Sunday anyway … But there are many small shops that will take advantage of this legislation. They will just be the kind of people who will try to exploit the weak and often transient population who are the kind of people likely to become shop assistants."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 January 1986; Vol. 470, c. 159.]
Also, Baroness Ewart-Biggs said in a debate in the other place:
We must always remember that the two very vulnerable groups who would be most affected are the shopworkers".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 February 1989; Vol. 503, c. 1568.]

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I respect his deeply held views. He seems to believe that, if my Bill is passed, shops will be open on Sundays on a fairly large scale. On 12 Sundays of the year, between noon and 6.30, bookmakers would be open, but not any other shops. Sunday opening could not be extended by my Bill. That would require the introduction of fresh legislation.

Mr. McFall: I accept that that is what is in the Bill. However, if the Bill were passed, a head of steam would build up. There is already a lobby in favour of changing the Shops Act and of deregulation. The Bill would give it added impetus.
The racing fraternity wants to have its cake and eat it. Why not simply allow on-course betting? The hon. Member for Berkshire, East spoke about his discussions with the Home Secretary. The Republic of Ireland has introduced racing on Sundays, but its betting shops do not open on Sundays. They take bets on Saturdays, and I see no inconsistency in that. Why should we not apply that system here?
Many of those who support the Bill say that they are in favour of preserving the traditional Sunday, but that is fraudulent, because the two are mutually exclusive.
The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers is against the Bill because it fears that there will be no protection for shopworkers against exploitation. I realise that the Bill includes a schedule protecting the rights of existing employees, but employment legislation would need to be revised if the Bill were passed. There cannot be any meaningful protection for workers, and in support of that argument I cite the latest changes to the industrial tribunals for workers which make it harder for them to appeal. Unfortunately, what the hon. Gentleman, in good faith, has put in his Bill will not be sufficient protection for shopworkers.

Mr. Ray Powell: My hon. Friend mentioned USDAW. He will know that that union sponsors me. It is concerned not only about the effects of the Bill but about the fact that it could be the thin edge of the wedge for the introduction of Sunday shop opening. Will my hon. Friend comment on the USDAW stand on this matter since 1986?

Mr. McFall: USDAW has genuine fears. I have been into shops in my constituency over the past few weeks, knowing that the Bill was to be debated. In many supermarkets, 15, 16 and 17-year-olds take the money, and when I ask them what their conditions of work are they say that they work for a limited time, that there is no protection for them and that they can be dismissed just like that.
In my constituency there are two cases involving young people of 16 and 17. I have written to the supermarkets in question, as I have in other instances in the past year, and in reply to my letters to the supermarket chairmen I receive answers saying that they are sorry and that it will not happen again. That does nothing for the advancement and consolidation of shopworkers' rights. Therefore, USDAW is concerned about the Bill.

Mr. Soames: What does this have to do with the Bill.

Mr. McFall: We are talking about management problems. It has already been suggested that there will be one free day, so that people will be left having to work a six-day week. Marks and Spencer carried out a study of shopping on Sundays. It looked at shopping patterns in America and concluded that the same amount of money is taken in six days as is taken in seven.

Mr. Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is totally irrelevant. We are not talking about shops.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will leave the question of what is and what is not in order to me.

Mr. McFall: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman had followed the logic of what I was saying, he would not have raised that point of order.
Sunday racing is but one step away from Sunday trading and it should be viewed in that light. Shopworkers and local residents ought to be consulted because they will be affected by the Bill. No hon. Member has referred to consulting individuals who will be affected by the Bill. Local issues are involved. There will have to be safeguards against unwarranted problems caused by hooligans. Local authorities as well as local groups have a role to play.
Local authorities should be given the power to license Sunday sport, after consultations with local groups. If the sponsor of the Bill had included such a provision, genuine consultation with all involved would have been assured. That would have been the best way to go about it. The Bill can be compared with the authoritarian way that the Government intend to go about issuing identity cards to football supporters.
There is a precedent for my suggestion that local people ought to be consulted over sporting fixtures—the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963. A sports stadium is required to obtain a licence from the local authority before betting is allowed there. If such a provision were included in the Bill, it would be a much better Bill.
There is a special quality about Sundays. Soon after the French Revolution of 1789 Sunday was abolished. Latin words were used to describe the days of the week, but Sunday was quickly re-established. Despite what the sponsors of the Bill want to do, I believe that Sunday is here to stay.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) on having introduced the Bill. It improves and expands the Bill that I introduced. It is right and proper that important and contentious matters of this kind should be debated by the House on a number of occasions. In that way they are refined and honed before they go into Committee; meat can be put on the bare bones. My hon. Friend has done a remarkably good job in carrying out such full and extensive consultation. He has produced a little beauty of a Bill which deserves the full and wholehearted support of the House. At the least, it should be given a Second Reading and considered in Committee.
I regret that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) is not here to take his medicine, but I am going to give it to him in his absence. He made a disagreeable, sanctimonious and arrogant beast of a speech. It was destructive and mean. I think that the all-party racing and bloodstock committee should consider appointing a new vice-chairman. His portrayal of the racing industry was a travesty. No doubt we shall hear a similar speech from the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). His assertion that my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East was not the right and proper person to introduce the Bill was downright offensive. With his sponsors, such as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), my hon. Friend has done a thorough job. They have examined carefully the opportunities that were open to them to produce a better and more effective measure.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Did the hon. Gentleman do my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) the courtesy of telling him that he intended to refer to him in such a way? If he did not, he has not served the House well.

Mr. Soames: That was the most extraordinary remark to make. The hon. Member for Attercliffe made a very long, offensive and controversial speech and then left the Chamber. If he did not have the manners to stay, that is a matter for him. Had I intended to raise the matter on another occasion, of course I should have informed him, but since he has not had the manners to stay he will have to read what I have said about him. I should be happy to repeat what I have said to him outside the Chamber.
Last Sunday, West Ham football club and the club of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), played an important match in front of a crowd of 22,000 people. A further 6 million watched the match on television. I am proud to say—because I know that Opposition Members do not follow football as keenly as Conservative Members—that my hon. Friend's team cantered to an easy victory and that they are coasting towards the final of the Littlewoods cup. We look forward to receiving the same hospitality as we did on the last occasion. Such sporting events take place every Sunday.

Mr. McFall: Opposition Members watch football from the terraces. It ill behoves the hon. Gentleman—the best-dressed John the Baptist that we have ever seen—to criticise Opposition Members.

Mr. Soames: After listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech, I can only say that I hope that he does not do it on Sundays.
Every Sunday, sporting events take place against the background of the Sunday Observance Act 1780, in a spirit that openly and flagrantly breaches the law of the land. By charging for admission—whether for cash or tickets sold in advance, or for car parking or other reasons—Those events are taking place illegally. They include the Wimbledon finals, the British Open golf championships, the Littlewoods cup final, at which we hope to be the guest of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield, the British grand prix, the Sunday cricket league and the International polo championships, so frequented by Opposition Members. The list goes on.
In theory as well as in fact, all these events take place quite improperly. Their organisers are breaking the law when they charge for admission. The law is self-evidently being brought into disrepute. The House of Commons should not allow that to continue for a moment longer. It is a most unhappy and unsatisfactory state of affairs which cannot and must not be allowed to continue.
It should not be for this House to prevent the extension of facilities for the further enjoyment of leisure by millions of our constituents. Sundays have changed. In my view they have changed for the better. Sunday is becoming an even more special day. More and more opportunities are opening up for families to spend the day together at a wide variety of events—and rightly so. The leisure industry, which is one of our biggest and most important of employers, is expanding all the time as demand grows.

Mr. Beith: Can the hon. Gentleman really define betting shops, which are the crux of the Bill, as appropriate places for families to spend their Sundays?

Mr. Soames: I do not regard betting shops as being the crux of the Bill, but they are an important part of it. I understand the hang-up that the hon. Gentleman has about gambling, but I think that he is talking nonsense. It is perfectly possible and legal for all of us to go into a pub, or a bingo hall, or any other public place and fill slot machines with 50p coins on a Sunday. We can go to a casino—I am sure that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is never out of them on Sundays. If, like Opposition Members, we are better off, we probably have credit accounts at Ladbrokes, but the ordinary fellow who is not deemed creditworthy by that august organisation is not permitted to have a bet. It is a leftover from the nanny state which could be swept aside without any harm to the British populace. It is the worst sort of class distinction—the sort that the Opposition have practised for many years.

Mr. Beith: rose—

Mr. Soames: I must get on.
More than 110,000 public houses, restaurants and other licensed premises are open on Sundays. They have reached harmonious, honourable and satisfactory arrangements with their employees. There is no reason why racing should not do the same. There are many thousands more cafes, pizza parlours, hamburger houses and other eating places that do not sell drinks and are open on Sundays.

Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soames: No.
I hear no great clamour in the House for those facilities to be closed. I hear no great claims from the Lord's Day Observance Society that those are unsatisfactory and improper places. Does the House really believe that the opening of National Trust properties, gardens and museums as well as casinos and bingo halls has wrecked the spirit of the family Sunday? Of course it has not, and no more would racing on Sundays.
By and large, those who oppose the Bill are entirely out of touch with the feelings, demands and aspirations of family life in Britain today. They tend to use the word "family" as an entirely emotive red herring. The Bill prevents no one from going to church. Nor, I am glad to say, does it make it compulsory for people to go to church, and it does not stop people staying at home if they want to. But it does enable people to go legally, with or without their family, to the sporting event of their choice, and—whisper it not in Sodom—to have a bet. It is hardly Sodom and Gomorrah made flesh at Kempton Park on a Sunday afternoon. We welcome back the hon. Member for Attercliffe. I am so sorry that he was away when I was having a word about his disagreeable little speech.

Mr. Duffy: One of the most strictly observed conventions of the House is that an hon. Member does not refer to another hon. Member without giving him notice of his intention to do so or, during the course of the debate, waiting until that hon. Member has resumed his seat. The hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that after I sat down I would be required in the Hansard room, as he shall be soon.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman speaks with much more experience than I do, but normally when one receives a note from Hansard it says, "Your speech will be ready for inspection within one hour " Because the hon.
Gentleman's speech was extremely simplistic, I am sure that it will be ready in about 10 minutes. I was not to know that the hon. Member would spend so long correcting his speech, although it was a rotten little speech. I was not to know that the hon. Gentleman would come back, and I shall be very happy to repeat to the hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber exactly what I said inside the Chamber. Although the hon. Gentleman is a senior Member, he would do well to remember that if he plans lo make a constroversial speech, he should wait to hear what other folk have to say about it.
At present, sporting events are taking place entirely in contravention and breach of the Sunday Observance Act 1780, which describes such gatherings as "disorderly houses" or, "disorderly places"—rather like the parliamentary Labour party. [Interruption.] I am so sorry; that was a terrible thing to say. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will not be offended.
The present state of the law has surprised and shocked some of the eminent and important people who attend the Wimbledon finals and other great sporting occasions which take place on Sundays. The organisers of such events are liable to fines and, indeed, imprisonment. The law is still liable to pounce on Sunday sport, but it is largely unenforceable and unenforced, and for that reason it is brought into disrepute. That is an unattractive and unwelcome state of affairs for any Government of whatever persuasion. I believe that it should be put right.
Cricket, football and rugger matches at which admission is charged are held on Sundays as a matter of course. Some organisers, particularly of Sunday gold tournaments, try to get round the law by making spectators one-day club members. Sports venues such as Wembley have one free gate which they hope and pray no one will find. If it is found, there is room only for 200 people. Such transparent devices would rightly founder if tested in court. Some sporting organisations that do not have the muscle of the big sporting bodies are frightened to stage events on Sundays, although their members would very much like them to do so. That is further evidence of the higly discriminatory nature of the way in which the law has evolved.
The sporting organisations, which I know have been fully canvassed by my hon. Friend, contrary to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), strongly wish these matters to be cleared up so that they no longer have to resort to subterfuge and continued malpractice. Surely, when a law is so widely and frequently broken in the presence of so many millions of people, it must be right for the House to adjust it to remove the threat of penalties. That is what happened when the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932 at last allowed admission to be charged for singing, musical and similar entertainments. Forty years later the Sunday Theatre Act 1972 made a similar provision and Sunday cinema shows have gradually been made legal and become popular. I hear no great cry from the Opposition, or from Conservative Members who disagree with the Bill, that such facilities should be withdrawn. But sport remains a major and serious victim. Parliament should not be seen to be too lax or easy going about such matters, but every Sunday the law of the land is brought into grave disrepute.
Although I greatly respect the views of the hon. Member for Dumbarton, the Bill has nothing to do with the Shops Act. I hope that he will accept that when I introduced my Bill, and when my hon. Friend the Member


for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) introduced his, it had nothing to do with the Shops Act. It is not a stalking horse for Sunday trading. I share the views of the Opposition about some aspects of Sunday trading.

Mr. Lofthouse: We accept that that is the case and we accept the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman has spoken. However, does he agree that the Bill will make it legal for betting shops to be opened on Sundays? Why does he feel that that is essential and why are they to open on 12 Sundays? Why should they be open at all?

Mr. Soames: The guidance that my hon. Friend was given by the Home Secretary is that it would be acceptable for those betting shops to be open on only 12 Sundays a year. The hon. Gentleman may laugh, but the Bill provides for betting shops to open on only 12 Sundays a year.

Mr. Martlew: Why?

Mr. Andrew MacKay: The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) was not in his place when I made the point, so I shall clarify it for him. I would have been quite happy with on-course betting only when the organisers wanted to stage horse racing meetings on Sundays. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear that he and his advisers believed that having only on-course betting would lead to a return to the bad old days of the 1950s with illegal gambling and racketeering. I have to accept that from an eminent Home Secretary who has good professional advice. In order to take into account the views of hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), who are concerned about bookmakers opening on a Sunday, they have been restricted to opening on only 12 Sundays a year between noon and 6.30 pm.

Mr. Soames: I know and understand the reservations of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), but he must accept in good faith that the Bill is not a stalking horse for the Shops Act. It would not allow a single extra retail shop to open or to spoil in any way the special nature of Sunday.
Most fixtures take place on grounds away from major centres of population. Horse racing is gravely discriminated against by Sunday laws and yet it is the favourite sport of millions of our fellow citizens from all backgrounds and all parts of the United Kingdom. The racing industry is rightly proud that it already provides marvellous entertainment for all the family. No other sporting gathering should find such favour with the Labour party. There is no sporting gathering at which the atmosphere is more friendly and welcoming than a gathering at a racecourse. A day at the races is a proper, old-fashioned day out in the open air with the added attraction of a superb spectator sport.
By their very nature, most of the 59 racecourses in Britain are away from built-up areas. To open racecourses on a Sunday would do no more to destroy the special nature of Sundays than does the opening of historic houses, garden centres, safari parks and museums. We are the only major racing country, apart from New Zealand, which does not have Sunday racing. In France, more than three times as many people go racing on a Sunday as the daily average for the rest of the week, including Saturday.

Mr. Martlew: Many times today France has been offered as an example that we should follow. Is it not a fact that in France one can lose one's money on a horse on Sunday and then eat the horse for dinner on Monday evening? They eat horses in France. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should follow the French example?

Mr. Soames: I regret having given way to the hon. Gentleman. That is the most absurd point I have heard from an Opposition Member this year.
I should tell the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) that my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, was a practising butcher before coming to the House. He went to see the film "Watership Down" and, as a good selling point, he bought 150 rabbits which he strung up outside his shop. He put a sign underneath saying "You've read the book, you've seen the film, now eat the cast." I know that that will be deeply shocking to Opposition Members, who are all vegetarian.
The House should know that many more people go to church in France than in Britain.
The point made by the hon. Member for Attercliffe with which I have the most sympathy—if it is possible to have such sympathy—is the only serious point in his speech. It concerns the difficulties of work and the problems attached to that. The hon. Gentleman and I duelled across the Floor when we debated this matter last year. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East consulted various bodies, including jockeys' valets, and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) consulted many more organisations. I think that we have covered everybody. None of us was in any doubt that Sunday racing could not take place, and nor would the racing industry wish it to take place, without honourable and decent arrangements being made for all those who would take part, including stable lads, jockeys, jockeys' valets, racecourse staff and everyone else. An agreement would have to be arrived at which would enable Sunday racing to take place. That must go without saying.
Clause 3 incorporates a schedule into the Bill, which is certainly not perfect—my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East does not claim that it is perfect—but it is a decent starting point for the Bill to go into Committee and for discussions to take place which will help us to arrive at an honourable arrangement.

Mr. Thurnham: My hon. Friend said that more people in France go to church on a Sunday—and may then go to a race if they wish—than go to church in this country. Does he not think that the Lord's Day Observance Society should address itself more to that problem? In my constituency there are more Moslems in their mosques on a Friday and Jews in their synagogues on a Saturday than Christians in church on a Sunday.

Mr. Soames: I would not wish to be drawn into such an argument because I may have to debate those matters with the bishop of Durham. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is one of the fallacies of the argument put by Opposition Members. Those who oppose the Bill do so for such rag, tag and bobtail reasons that it is difficult to find out where their objections lie.
This is an excellent and important Bill. It will bring great pleasure to millions of ordinary folk in Britain and will harm no one. It will return to the law the respect to


which it is entitled. I urge the House to consider carefully allowing the Bill to go into Committee for further and deeper consideration.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am glad to be the first Opposition Member to endorse the Bill and to congratulate the hon. Members for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) and for Crawley (Mr. Soames), who introduced a similar Bill on a previous occasion, on the impeccable logic of their speeches today as well as their support for the measure. I should also like to congratulate Lord Wyatt in another place who introduced a similar Bill and, with great skill, persuaded their Lordships that it should be passed into law.
I have a record on this matter. On 14 March 1958, shortly after coming to the House, I won first place in a ballot for private Members' motions. I introduced a motion calling for a Select Committee to be set up to deal with Sunday observance. It is now 30 years on and one would have liked to think that we would have made more progress on people's cultural activities, which is how sport should be described.
When we changed the rules for the arts, music and the theatre we had none of the unacceptable and illogical opposition that arises when we deal with sport. As a sporting man, I take grave exception to the distinction that has been made by some—and I am sorry to say that some of the opposition comes from my hon. Friends—between one man's sporting and leisure activities and those of another. I hope that we can put that right.
The Sunday observance laws still obtain in this country and go back to the 17th century. I mention that because we have to explain how we approach these matters. I respect the views of those who have spoken today but with which I thoroughly disagree. Few people in the House or outside would think it right to defend legislation of a social character which looked back over 300 years. The Sunday Observance Act 1625 says that there should be no sport or pastimes on a Sunday and a fine is still in operation. It is three shillings and fourpence. In those days I suppose that it was a lot of money. There was further legislation on Sunday observance in 1677 and 1780. Those who oppose the Bill for football supporters' identity cards will find a certain piquancy about the Sunday Observance Act 1780 which in retrospect, should be known as the "Moynihan Act". It makes it illegal to row or ride in a boat which is mechanically propelled. Hon. Members know that the Minister with responsibility for sport does no sport better than rowing a boat. The legislation, which was 300 years ahead of its time, was designed to curtail his activities. I only hope that the authors of the legislation come to our assistance when we debate the diabolical plan to introduce football identity cards.
Although they are still on the statute book, those laws have fallen into disrepute, and we must face up to that fact. Many years ago, it was illegal for a working man to place a bet with a bookmaker. I used to do that on behalf of my father when he was ill. It gave him a lot of pleasure to have a flutter. It occupied his mind to read the Daily Herald, as it was in those days, and ask, "Would you please put a bet on for me?" That was his great interest in life. Some hon. Members like to think that they represent the working classes. I accept that the definition of working people is

much broader than it was in the old days, but we must not despise the simple pleasures of ordinary people who want to have a bet on a Sunday or on any other day.
Sport and worship on a Sunday are not incompatible. I regularly watch Warwickshire cricket club play on Sundays and then go to evensong, which happens to be my favourite service, and I greatly enjoy it. Next Sunday, when I am in Torquay having a weekend's break, I shall go to the United Reformed central club. If it were possible to watch Torquay United, I would do so, but they will not be playing. I shall indulge in some other pleasures which certainly rely upon the employment of people in the hotel, leisure, recreation or boating industries. If I decide, as I often do when I am on holiday, to do a little sea angling and hire a boat and a boatman to take me out to sea, it never occurs to me that there is anything incompatible between worship and that enjoyment.
It has always been my approach to life that, in essence, the purpose of recreation is spiritual. We should emphasise the word "recreation". That is what we do on Sundays, and that is one reason I do not want to see the nature of Sunday greatly transformed and why I have always voted against Sunday trading regulations, and I shall continue to do so. Sport, recreation, theatre and the arts are part of recreation.
On a theological subject, if the House will not mind my indulging myself for a moment. I shall refer to something that I said in the House on 14 March 1958. I said that William Temple, one of the greatest archbishops of this country—I am certain that that is accepted by Opposition Members—speaking on this very subject, said:
The most precious gift of God to man is that of individual free will.
On the importance of individual free will, which he said was greater than almost any other concept in a democratic society, he said:
It is worthwhile to notice how absolute was Christ's respect for the freedom of personal choice. He would neither bribe nor coerce men to become followers. Judas must be allowed to betray Him if he is so determined. Not even to save a man from that will the Lord override his freedom. For on freedom all spiritual life utterly depends. It is astonishing and terrifying that the Church has so often failed to understand this.
That is extremely moving writing by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, and we should take it into account. I rest my case on the essence of free will representing the centre of the Christian faith.
I have another interest to confess. More than anybody else, I am responsible for the start of Sunday football in this country. It started during the war when we were working six and a half days a week in Birmingham. The only time we had for relaxation was on Sunday afternoons. Therefore, I decided to form a Sunday football league. It was the first Sunday league ever affliated with the Football Association. Such was the humbug operating in those days that, to get it affliated, we had to call it the Birmingham Monday League—Sunday Section. That is how Sunday football originated in this country.
At the end of the war, when people were a little more relaxed and we were clearly winning and there was the development of Sunday cricket, the great Cavaliers organisation was started by the late Basil Harvey, and it included people such as Denis Compton and others who, although they were in the forces, turned out on Sundays. One of the greatest cricket performances I have ever seen was performed by the late Sir Learie Constantine, who


later became Lord Constantine—he was Learie to us. He gave a magnificent demonstration of all aspects of cricket—batting, bowling and fielding—on a Sunday at the Edgbaston cricket ground. I had spiritual uplifting from that performance. Some people might find that hard to understand, but I treasure that experience.
As we have been told many times today, Sunday sport is an essential part of the fabric of life of this country. No right hon. or hon. Member would dare say that we want to invoke the Sunday Observance Act and stop all Sunday sport. I am glad to say that nodoby is proposing any such thing. One of the great virtues of the Bill, against which people have a legitimate point to raise in opposition, is its sense of balance. Hon. Members must ask themselves whether, because they object to betting shops being open on 12 Sundays, they should oppose legitimising all sport. The royal family and the Prime Minister attend events such as Wimbledon. I like to think that the right hon. Lady's occasional association with sport is for the benefit of the nation. I wish that she would go more often. We might then get better political decisions from her.
We have Sunday football. I acknowledge the great achievements of Luton Town. I wish the team well in its forthcoming encounters. In the presence of the distinguished chairman of that club, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), I am glad to say that if his team goes to Wembley, none of his supporters will need identification cards. Many more thousands will be there to cheer them on than he could manage to get into his ground at Luton, where he is keeping them out. But that matter is for another day. I genuinely wish Luton every success.
What are we to say to the 500,000 people who turn up to watch motor racing events such as the grand prix? Are we to discount those people and say that they are engaged in some evil activity? Certainly not. What about people who watch motorcycle scrambles, rugby league matches and golf—the Ryder cup and the British Open? We have to take account of their wishes. If there are good reasons, who is to override them? We are not entitled to do so. That is our purpose here. But there are no good reasons to override the recreational activities of millions of British people.
I wonder what people who object to Sunday sport do on Sundays in their homes. If they were logical, they would never turn on the radio or watch the television. Millions of people get pleasure from watching football matches, cricket or golf on television on Sundays. Sometimes they even watch racing, but that must be projected from abroad. I have never met people—I suspect that there are only few—who say that they will not allow any activity on Sunday in their household, and who do not listen to the radio or watch television. To provide us with those pleasures entails the employment on Sunday of large numbers of people, most of whom do not wish to work on Sundays.
I am a lifelong trade unionist. This is almost my 50th year of membership of my union, for 12 years of which I have been president. I understand the difficulties about trade union rights and protecting working people. The Bill will give more statutory protection to workers in Sunday employment than has ever been put on the statute book by any Act in my 30-odd years in this House. I welcome that and want to take advantage of it.
If Ladbrokes will not allow people to join the union, to which I understand one of my colleagues who is sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union will draw attention, that is disgraceful. Everybody has a right to join a trade union and to be organised. If I am fortunate enough to serve on the Committee, I shall be happy to do what I can to extend trade union rights, protections and recognition as far as possible. Certainly protection for those who do not want to work on Sundays and proper rates of pay for Sunday work can be included in the Bill. That will be a great advance for the trade union movement and something which we have not had previously.

Mr. Soames: I know that the right hon. Gentleman was extremely helpful to me last year when we were discussing these matters and that he helped Lord Wyatt to draft the schedule. Does he agree that it is not possible to have racing on Sunday, leaving aside the question of TGWU representation in betting offices, unless an honourable agreement is reached by all concerned on day one? It would not work without it.

Mr. Howell: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. At the end of the day we must have good will to enact anything. However, I have sympathy with the points raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) read, I think from a survey in The Times, about the conditions of race courses. Some of us would like to apply our mind to that. The Jockey Club and other institutions must be as zealous about safeguarding conditions and paying proper wages to stable boys and others as about prize money and other aspects of racing. I should like them to go down that road. It is to the great credit of Lord Wyatt that in the other place he raised several outrageous matters and managed to get the Jockey Club and others for the first time to think about the welfare of their employees.
I am all for protecting stable boys and people in betting shops, but we all take full advantage of others who work on Sundays, for example, in hotels, restaurants and seaside resorts. When my hon. Friends tell me that we must not allow anything which causes a disturbance on Sunday, I wonder what they think happens in Blackpool, Torquay or Cornwall during the summer season. People work for our pleasure and convenience and we should be glad that they do. As a trade unionist and Socialist, I want those people to have every possible protection, the right to join a union and proper rates of overtime. That is perfectly legitimate and arguable. We can no longer say to people in the leisure business, any more than we can say to doctors, nurses, and workers in the gas, electricity, water and transport industries, "We do not want you to work on Sundays." We know that they do not want to work on Sundays, but they work for the convenience of the nation. We should ensure that their rights and conditions are protected.

Mr. Thurnham: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more than 5·5 million people work on Sundays? The proposals to deregulate Sundays would increase that figure by only about 10 per cent. or less. Does he agree that a great deal of humbug and hypocrisy is spoken about this?

Mr. Howell: I would not go that far, but I know from my 35 years' experience in this House that a lot of humbug and hypocrisy is spoken on every conceivable subject that we are likely to debate. We must consider these matters as reasonable men and women.

Mr. Randall: I have listened with great interest to my right hon. Friend's logic and his point about how we all enjoy services provided by all sorts of people on Sundays. It seems that he supports the notion of Sunday opening and the deregulation of trading.

Mr. Howell: Not at all. I am afraid that my hon. Friend has not been following my argument with his customary diligence. I was saying that Sunday is a day of recreation and re-creation. It almost has a spiritual aroma. When people are re-created through leisure, that is special. That is the case for sports and the arts on Sunday. It must not be confused with the case for wholesale commercialism and Sunday opening. I am against that. I do not regard Sunday sport for recreation, spiritual uplift and cultural enjoyment as an extension of commercialism. I hope that my hon. Friend will not draw me on to that track.

Mr. W. Benyon: Does not the right hon. Gentleman find it curious that racing is one of the richest sports. yet stable lads are some of the worst paid people? The reason is that many people want to become stable lads. Does he genuinely think that people will be employed as stable lads if they say that they are not prepared to work on Sundays?

Mr. Howell: If the hon. Gentleman was listening to what I was saying, he would know that I had just dealt with that. If he has just come in, I am sorry that I gave way to him [HON. MEMBERS: "He has been here all the time."] In that case, I apologise to him. I shall have to repeat what I said before. People should not be exploited on Sundays. People are entitled to protection and trade union rights on Sundays. I fully support that. It is astonishing that the Jockey Club has not given sufficient attention to that aspect of the industry. I am glad that Lord Wyatt is moving in the right direction. I hope that the Bill will make progress in the other place.
Should we oppose all that I have been talking about because the Bill proposes to allow betting shops to open on 12 Sundays a year? I do not believe that it is logical to do so. It is necessary for the betting shops to be open so that the punters can have their flutter—of which I approve.
What has emerged on both sides of this House—especially from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and from the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay)—is that we now have for the first time Sunday racing in Ireland. I support my hon. Friend's view that, if we are to avoid illegal betting, we cannot have Sunday racing without betting shops being open. The advent of Sunday racing in Ireland should be monitored carefully. For Sunday racing in Ireland there is on-track betting only. I ask the Minister to find out whether that has led to an extension of illegal betting, which he and I both fear. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton that we should study this new situation and not be afraid to rethink matters if that fear is justified. Of course, if it is, it would enforce the Home Office's view, and I would he the first to acknowledge that.

Mr. Holt: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a certain inconsistency of thinking in the Home Office, because for evening racing, which is now more frequent—it is certainly far more frequent than the number of Sundays on which it is proposed to have racing—the punters cannot by law go to the betting shop in the evening and have a bet. Yet the same Home Office says

that we cannot have Sunday racing without the betting shops being open, because otherwise illegal betting will be encouraged. If it does not encourage illegal betting in the evenings, the industry can be run perfectly well without betting shops being open in the evenings, why would it do so on Sundays?

Mr. Howell: I am tempted to say "game, set and match" to that comment, because I believe that it is completely logical. I hope that the Minister will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
I understand the concern, but my overriding concern is to allow people to exercise their free right to enjoy themselves and to provide proper safeguards for the staff who must work on Sundays in order that we achieve our aims. If the Irish experience is successful, we should take note of it. Whatever view we take of this, if our objection is to the opening of betting shops, that may be the catalyst around which we can find common ground.
I say to my friends in the Jockey Club that they need to be careful about the comments in support of this measure. I shall cite one example. The Jockey Club said that the Grand National could be run on a Sunday if the Bill was passed. It could not. The hon. Member for Berkshire, East is quite right in restricting the hours of opening of betting shops on Sundays to 12 noon to 6.30 pm. The Grand National attracts more betting than almost any other race. There is an avalanche of flutters among housewives. Their interests could not possibly be maintained by opening the betting shops at 12 o'clock.

Mr. Holt: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that bookmakers, almost without exception, have to act illegally on Grand National day to pay out winning punters after the official closing time of 6 o'clock?

Mr. Howell: They must have been backing better horses than the ones which I backed. I may add, however, that the Grand National is one of my lucky races.
I hope that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading. I hope that it will go to Committee. There are good grounds for trade unionists to get their teeth into the Bill in Committee.

Mr. Duffy: Trade unions are not in agreement.

Mr. Howell: Some trade unions are.

Mr. Duffy: Which trade unions are in favour?

Mr. Howell: Mine. It is just as important as my hon. Friend's.

Mr. Duffy: That is a typical Tory claim, is it not? That is just what the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) would have said.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Duffy: I am speaking for the industry.

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend must control himself. The trouble with my hon. Friend. is that he assumes that his own personal view is automatically the view of everyone else.

Mr. Duffy: What about the stable lads?

Mr. Howell: I am saying that I want people to have free choice. I will defend to the death my hon. Friend's right to oppose this Bill.

Mr. Duffy: My right hon. Friend is on his own.

Mr. Howell: A lot of people would defend my hon. Friend's right. We would hope, however, that he would do it in a more intelligent way than he managed earlier.

Mr. Duffy: My right hon. Friend is with the Tories.

Mr. Howell: I am not with the Tories. If we fought a general election on this matter, more Labour voters would support my view than would support his. I do not want to turn this into a party political discussion. For Heaven's sake, let us understand where we are.
I support the Bill. I want it to go to Committee so that we can consider the question of protection of staff, betting and all the other matters involved. I support it because I believe that it is a move towards the encouragement of a civilised life on Sundays. People can enrich their lives by enjoying themselves in a non-commercial way in sport. It will not change the character of Sundays. As a committed Christian, I believe that it enshrines the Christian concept of individual free will, which I regard as paramount.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate. I begin by saying to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) that I was rather surprised by the tone of some of his remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay). He appeared to be suggesting in an ill-natured way—although he is normally an extremely courteous opponent—that because my hon. Friend has taken a high profile on another issue it was somehow unwise or improper of him also to take a high profile on this one. It would be a rather extraordinary state of affairs if we could exercise our consciences in only one area at a time. It is a rather alarming proposition and one which I would not have expected even from the Opposition.
I should have thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East had proved by the extensive nature of his consultations that he was eminently qualified and, indeed, sufficiently devoted to the cause to be introducing the Bill. Although I certainly would not go so far as to compare his qualities with the one who came after John the Baptist—which I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) was in severe danger of doing at one point—nevertheless the way in which he has presented the Bill, about which I am about to disagree profoundly, should have won the respect of the House as well as of those on whose behalf he is moving it.
In absolutely opposing the Bill, I hope that I cannot be accused of being a Sabbatarian zealot. In fact, I favour deregulation. The churches in my constituency and constituents of mine who do not share my view are fully aware of that. I believe that the anomalies in the existing law need tidying up and I have never seen—although I remain open to conviction—a sensible compromise which makes it possible to enter partial deregulation. That is the basis of my disagreement with the Bill.
In essence my hon. Friend is suggesting piecemeal legislation. It does not matter very much to me whether the Bill is a stalking horse for total deregulation. In its own right, as a measure of piecemeal deregulation, it is fundamentally flawed and it will create far more anomalies than it will solve, particularly in the high streets with the opening of betting shops. Nothing that I have heard

convinces me that those flaws are superficial and that they can be ironed out if the Bill is sent into Committee. The plea, "Let the Bill go to Committee upstairs" is common and I cannot deny that I have made that plea on occasions. I fully expected to hear such a plea from the proponents of the Bill.
When considering whether a Bill should go upstairs one must decide, looking at the essential nature of the Bill as opposed to its clauses, whether it is possible for it to emerge from Committee in a form to satisfy the misgivings of those who did not want it to be sent there in the first place. So far I have heard nothing that convinces me that the essential nature of the Bill is viable. It is a piecemeal measure.
My hon. Friend started to go down the road of complicated legislation by promising us that if there were any alterations to the 12 Sundays that he proposed for off-course betting, they would need to be decided separately and that, therefore, we need not worry. The fact that my hon. Friend has already started to limit his Bill and has started to introduce complications about how often the things that he seeks to legalise can be legalised suggests that we are still floundering around with anomaly after anomaly and are trying to solve an already overregulated situation with even more complicated regulations.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Given that there may be genuine fears, does my hon. Friend not agree that a step-by-step approach is a good idea? If betting shops are open on 12 Sundays a year we can judge, over a number of years, how that goes. If initial fears are ill-founded, another hon. Member can introduce legislation to make changes. Surely such a compromise is a better way of proceeding than making a definite decision when some people are uncertain of the final results.

Miss Widdecombe: I respect what my hon. Friend has said. He is seeking to go gently rather than rushing in, and that is an appealing argument. Nevertheless, as a result of his Bill, we will have another set of shops open on another regulated number of days while other shops will stay shut and others, which are supposed to stay shut, will open. The Bill does not clear up anomalies, it adds to them.
I am not convinced by the way in which my hon. Friend and others have approached the question of noise and disturbance. Forgetting the theological arguments for a moment and considering the social ones, Sunday is, for better or for worse, a special day of relative peace and quiet for much of the population.
I once had the gross misfortune to live fairly close to Fulham football ground, which was also used on alternate Sundays for rugby league. First, I was disturbed by the noise of the cheering and shouting that penetrated my back garden. Secondly, there was the hassle of the traffic that filled up all the normally peaceful residential roads and made it impossible for residents to move their cars on a Sunday or to park within a mile or one and a half miles of their own homes—

Mr. Holt: Is my hon. Friend advocating that all football matches should be banned on Sundays? Is that the logic of her argument?

Miss Widdecombe: The logic of my argument is that I do not want present policy to be extended. I shall address later the points raised by my hon. Friend.
The residential roads in Fulham were cluttered. The spectators were orderly and there was no misbehaviour, but they filled the streets and there was continual noise and traffic. I can understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East might say that, just as I have a right to cut my honeysuckle in a peaceful garden in Fulham, so someone else has the right to raise a lot of cheering and noise not too far from me. Freedom, however, is essentially a question of balance and I am not convinced that that balance is reached when something that could be done on another day of the week disturbs the peace and the orderly routine of the citizens and their families on a Sunday.
I detected a flaw in my hon. Friend's argument when he attempted to address that question. My hon. Friend said that we should not pick out a particular day of the week. He said that those who live near a racecourse or a sports ground encounter noise and disturbance on other days of the week, and that, therefore, there was no particular objection to Sunday. I respectfully suggest that there is a particular objection to Sunday because it is the day when it is most likely that all the family will be at home and the clay when people want peace and quiet. On an ordinary working day, when adult members of the family are likely to be at work and their children at school, what is going on in the immediate neighbourhood is of less importance than what goes on on a Sunday.
My hon. Friend was clever to concentrate all his efforts on racing. I believe that the Sunday Sports Bill—it is not a Sunday racing Bill—will inevitably lead to intensification and the extension of other sports on a Sunday.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Confusion is arising about the extension of other sports on a Sunday. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Health (Mr. Howell) and I have already clearly demonstrated that there are many sporting events on a Sunday that break the law. Few of those sports will extend the number of matches played beyond the present number once my Bill is in operation. Craven Cottage will not host any extra football matches on a Sunday because of my Bill. There will not be an increase in the current number of football matches, rugby matches and golf matches that take place on a Sunday; the only increase will be in horse racing.

Miss Widdecombe: There is already an increasing number of such matches and an increasing degree of commercialisation, with all that that implies. I believe that my hon. Friend's Bill will give an impetus to that increase.

Sir Charles Morrison: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I shall finish this point and then give way.
I have no sympathy with the view that if the law is broken extensively the only way in which to meet that is to legitimise the law breakers. Those who share my views were challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) who asked why the Lord's Day Observance Society did not prosecute more often and why we did not seek to close down enterprises that were already open? Why the law is not enforced more rigidly is a valid question, but there is a difference—

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Answer the question.

Miss Widdecombe: I am attempting to. There is a difference between saying that we should enforce the law,

recognising that there are some breaches, and saying that we will go for wholesale deregulation which will not only regularise the breaches, but increase their numbers.
Much has been said today about employment protection.

Mr. Thurnham: My hon. Friend has not tried to answer the question yet. If the law is being breached, should we turn a blind eye or should we enforce it?

Miss Widdecombe: The machinery for enforcing the law exists and can be used.

Mr. John Carlisle: My hon. Friend cannot have it both ways. She does not like piecemeal legislation. She says that she is reasonably happy with the present situation, and refuses to give the House her opinion on whether existing sporting events on Sundays should not take place and whether the Lord's Day Observance Society should prosecute those who take part in them. Does she want Sunday with or without sport?

Miss Widdecombe: I understand that what happens now is not so much that people flagrantly breach the law, but that they get around it—I offer the example of gate money.

Mr. David Evans: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Miss Widdecombe: Usually. I should be pleased to give way to the chairman of Luton football club, but on this occasion I want to move on. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East wants me to make progress.
My hon. Friend has not convinced me of the efficacy of his provisions for employment protection. He says that he has built into the Bill protection for existing employees, but that is a naive idea, since employees can be penalised in more ways than one. I do not believe that my hon. Friend's measures will protect people who do not want to work on Sundays from other forms of penalty that can be inflicted on them—overty and covertly—by their employers. My hon. Friend has not satisfied the House on that point.
The Bill creates another anomaly, too. My hon. Friend is fond of saying that he wants to iron out anomalies, but he creates them. One group of workers would be protected against dismissal for refusal to work on Sundays, and another would not. He was rather coy about whether he had consulted the staff of betting offices. He talked a great deal about choice and the freedom to choose.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I know that my hon. Friend does not agree with that.

Miss Widdecombe: The people who will be disturbed by noise from sporting and racing events have no choice, and neither do staff. What choice is my hon. Friend giving stable lads and betting shop staff?
There are 10,000 betting shops—[Interruption.] I have extended the courtesy of giving way several times to my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East, and I think that he should either stand up or stop making sedentary interventions. As I was saying, these 10,000 shops employ up to 40,000 people, who, if the Bill were passed, would stand to lose Sunday as a day of rest. So another 40,000 families would be affected by the measure.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: My h on. Friend encouraged me to intervene, properly, and I agree that I should. Does she


think that people who run restaurants, hotels, hospitals, television stations and petrol stations on Sundays have freedom of choice, or does she think they should not open for business? Perhaps we should stop petrol being sold and close down Heathrow on Sundays? That seems the logical conclusion.

Miss Widdecombe: The logical conclusion of my hon. Friend's argument is further to limit choice in an area in which it is already limited.
Next, my hon. Friend addressed the problem of illegal betting, completely ignoring the Irish experience and the fact that by naming runners on a Friday and placing bets on a Saturday there should be no need for illegal betting on Sunday.
There are too many flaws, fresh anomalies and piecemeal ideas in this Bill, however much my hon. Friend and I might agree about the basic principle of deregulation. His legislation would lead to more anomalies in our high streets and further limitations of choice being imposed on working people. The Bill is too flawed to be capable of rescue in Committee. I urge hon. Members to reject it.

Mr. Alan Meale: I congratulate the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) on introducing the Bill, not because I support it but because he has given us a chance to debate a sporting issue in the Chamber, and that is to his credit. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) whose judgment on sporting matters I value. However, I disagree with them both and I shall oppose the Bill.
It was rather unfortunate that the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) should have made the comments that he did about my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). It is also unfortunate that the chairman of the all-party racing group was present to hear them and did not object to them at the time, given the harmonious relationship between hon. Members from all sides in that committee.
I do not oppose the Bill because I am against Sunday racing. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, I believe that it would benefit the racing industry and provide a pleasure that could be enjoyed by many. However, this is not the Bill for the job. It is primarily a betting Bill to enable off-course betting to proceed. Should anyone doubt that he should have a look at the Bill. It is true that the Sunday Observance Act 1780 needs changing, but the exemption of sporting fixtures for which admission is charged creates an additional complication in this Bill and is not acceptable to the Government unless provision is made for such events to be carried-out legally.
The hon. Member for Berkshire, East reminded us of his interest in Sunday sport in November 1987. He asked the Home Secretary:
what is his policy on the introduction of horse racing on Sundays.
A junior Minister replied:
Provided suitable arrangements are made for betting to take place lawfully, we see no reason to stand in the way of horse racing on Sundays. That is the view we have expressed on the Bill introduced in another place by Lord Wyatt of Weeford and we are following the debate about that Bill and

the public debate which has arisen with interest. We have no plans at present to introduce legislation on this subject"—[Official Report, 5 November 1987; Vol. 121, c. 822.]
Clause 2 of the Bill seeks to remove section 5(4) of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, and restrictions covering on and off-course betting on Sundays. I should like to quote from "Recreation and the law" written by Valerie Collins in 1984. It says:

Sunday observance

Many spectator events are now organized on a Sunday, and this creates a potential difficulty under the Sunday observance laws.

The Sunday Observance Act 1780 provides that it is an offence where 'any house, room or other place … shall be opened or used for public entertainment, or for publicly debating on any subject whatsoever, upon any part of the Lord's Day, called Sunday, and to which persons shall be admitted by the payment of money, or by tickets sold for money.…'

This offence is not confined to entertainments in buildings, a point discussed in Culley v. Harrison (1956). 20In this case, a motor-cycle scramble had been held in a fenced-off area within a large park, to which members of the public who purchased a ticket were admitted. The organizers were charged with an offence under the Sunday Observance Act 1780 for using, on a Sunday, a place for public entertainment to which people were admitted on payment of money. They contended that 'other place' should be construed in relation to the preceding words 'any house, room,' and that a park was not a 'place' within the meaning of the section. The court decided that 'other place' in the Act was not restricted by the words 'house' and 'room' preceding it, and that the part of the park used for the motor-cycle scramble came within the Act, and an offence had been committed."

I disagree with the hon. Member for Crawley who said that betting was not the crux of the Bill. Some hon. Members have talked about France. Hon. Members should realise that betting shops in Britain are different from those in other countries. It cannot be said that the off-course betting industry in France operates in the same way. The Pari-Mutuel system in Paris is a tote-like operation and works through cafes and some registered establishments throughout France. I have checked with the organisation in charge of that and it confirmed that it has 650 Pari-Mutuel outlets throughout France. Those offices operate on some Sundays, but only for a limited period on Sunday mornings. However, I am informed by the organisation that it has just been granted the right to operate 77 such units in the afternoon. That is a vital and significant point.

The Bill would allow people to enter betting shops and place bets during the times of races. That is not the case in France, although some hon. Members have wrongly said that the French system operates in that way. Apart from placing bets in the 77 outlets in France that I have mentioned, people are confined to betting in a registered cafe or similar establishment on a race to take place some time later in the day. What is the reason behind the Bill's purpose to open betting shops? It is that it is a betting Bill and will cater for the betting industry's needs and wishes. That, rather than a wish to allow people to place bets, is the purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Soames: I know that the hon. Gentleman is speaking from an entirely partial point of view and is representing a specific interest, but will he accept that this is not a betting Bill? It is about allowing racing to take place on Sundays and to legalise other sports which at the moment are being carried on entirely illegally on Sundays.
Coincidentally, because of the dangers of the abuse of gambling, which the Government take very seriously, they


rightly do not believe that it is possible to have racing without off-course betting shops being open on 12 Sundays in the year. That is purely coincidental. The main aim is to allow millions of our constituents and fellow citizens to go racing if they would like to do so. Betting is a sideshow.

Mr. Meale: I disagree. the hon. Member for Crawley has referred to the French system. Even if we replicate that with the proposals in the Bill, people would still be allowed to place bets in betting shops on Sundays. That worries the majority of Opposition Members. I accept that there is no difference between hon. Members on both sides of the House about the issue of people participating in other sports on Sundays.
The hon. Member for Crawley should bear in mind the technological advances. A report in Horse and Hound on 9 February—I am sure that the hon. Member for Crawley reads that magazine regularly, although I do not—stated that the Pari-Mutuel is investing heavily in a Minitel system to allow people to place bets from home without going to betting establishments.
This is a betting Bill. It is intended to open betting shops. The hon. Member for Crawley is aware that over the past 18 months many discussions have taken place between the Jockey Club, the racing and bloodstock group and others about the possibility of racing on Sundays. The stumbling block has always been the opening of off-course betting shops in the high streets on Sundays.
Opposition Members are concerned about the Bill and we are worried about what is happening in the bookmaking industry. We must consider the new technological advances and satellite information services. We should also be concerned about the purchases being made by bookmaking organisations in this country and abroad.
The Sporting Life recently referred to the big four betting chains in Britain making inroads into the Irish market and purchasing betting shops in Southern Ireland. It referred to purchasers in Dublin and stated that 250 shops have been purchased in the capital by Corals, Mecca, William Hill and Ladbrokes.
The Financial Times recently stated that Ladbrokes has been heavily engaged in purchasing betting facilities in the United States and now has the contract for betting shops in California and Ohio. Major betting chains can now operate—

Mrs. Edwina Currie: The hon. Gentleman is wittering on about betting shops and the control of the betting industry. I am not sure what he is recommending. Does he think that it should be nationalised? What would he say to his ordinary, local, working-class constituents who are generally denied the credit accounts available to many of my constituents who can bet 24 hours a day, seven days a week? What would he say to them? Does he believe that they should not be allowed to visit betting shops?

Mr. Meale: I will surprise some hon. Members on your side of the Chamber—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Not on my side of the Chamber. It is not mine.

Mr. Meale: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The argument for a nationalised betting system was lost a considerable time ago. However, the industry and the

Government should encourage great participation in the tote enterprise. I say to the the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), that I do not seek to deny to any of my constituents the facility to place bets. I am drawing international comparisons because one must take into consideration new technologies such as SIS and domestic satellite television reception.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are self-evident nonsense. If betting shops—against which, obviously, he has a great vendetta—and betting organisations were to permit his union to recruit members, would he withdraw his opposition to the Bill? Yes or no?

Mr. Meale: The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting proposal, but I am unaware that he has the power to offer such a deal. However, the hon. Gentleman refers to the Transport and General Workers Union as though it is the union I represent, whereas I have been asked to speak on this matter by the Transport and General Workers Union only because of my general interest in racing. If the hon. Gentleman has time today or next week to examine the Members' register of interests in the Library, he will find that I am sponsored not by the TGWU but by a different union. My concern is a general one, for all who work in the industry, and it is not confined to the interests of the TGWU.

Mr. Soames: If I confused the hon. Gentleman, I apologise. Nevertheless, he is speaking to a Transport and General Workers Union brief. If betting shops were prepared to allow TGWU membership, would that union withdraw its opposition to the Bill? Yes or no?

Mr. Meale: As an independent observer, I can only say that any trade union would have to consider seriously a proposal such as that which the hon. Gentleman makes, mainly because of the wages and conditions that obtain in the betting industry. I have always found trade unions to be extremely amiable. Of course, they always try to make the best arguments for the people they represent, but they are always open to negotiation and discussion, for that is their function. I suspect that unions would be interested in the hon. Gentleman's proposition, but it is not enough to offer such a deal. A trade union would have to say to the industry—mainly Ladbrokes, "It is all right giving us the option to recruit members, but what about the pay and conditions of your employees?" Such a deal would need to have a dual purpose.
With new technology, the betting industry can beam into its betting shops live coverage of racing from different countries of the world, and some of those services are in the charge of major betting organisations. If the Bill is passed, bookmakers will have an opportunity to approach the Government at some time in the future and say,"We need to extend or amend the law slightly, so that the public can go to betting shops more often, or on a greater number of Sundays".

Mr. Duffy: And in the evening as well, to cover evening race meetings.

Mr. Meale: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe for reminding me that in the last few days, the betting industry has told the Home Secretary that opening on six days of the week is not enough, and that it also . wants Sunday opening. It does not want just Sunday opening—it is also seeking to extend the licensed hours for


the opening of betting shops into the evening. I am sorry if the hon. Member for Crawley disagrees, but this has been published in the national press.
One has to recall the proposals from the European Community about summer time. It looks as though, because of our failure in the negotiations on summer time, we shall have longer hours of light in the evening from 1993. That will give more opportunity for evening racing. When that happens, betting shops will be open not only seven days a week but seven nights a week.

Mr. Soames: I am not sure how the hon. Gentleman arrives at seven days and seven nights. Would he define his objections to evening racing? Does he envisage there being racing in the dark?

Mr. Meale: No, I do not envisage racing in the dark. I am reminding the House that, because of the failure in negotiations with the European Parliament on summer time—something about which those who support the Tories are worried—there will be the opportunity for a major extension of evening racing. I am not against evening racing. It would be beneficial to the industry if racing were extended into the evening rather than into Sunday, because of the dangers inherent in the later proposal.
We also oppose the Bill because of the state of the industry. We have already heard that everybody in racing, from the bookmakers to the starting stall attendants, from the owners to the trainers, is well aware that the racing industry is in a mess.

Mr. Holt: That is not true.

Mr. Meale: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not read the daily papers. In recent months, there have been turmoil and arguments in the industry over the levy contribution, between all sections of the bookmaking community, the Jockey Club, the levy board and many others.

Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman is talking out of the back of his head, and he does not know the first thing about the levy board negotiations, to which I have been a party. There is a dispute between the two sides, but there always is a dispute. This is the 28th set of negotiations on this matter, and it will be resolved in the way that it always has been before. There is no turmoil in the industry and it is arrant nonsense to suggest that there is.

Mr. Meale: I am pleased to hear it because that is what I understood from the short discussions that I have had with the hon. Gentleman in recent weeks. He has made it plain that there is anger in the bookmaking community about the size of the increase in the levy that has been demanded. There is no doubt about that. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns. He is a consultant for one of the bookmaking organisations. The on-course book-makers have been rightly concerned about the increase in percentage terms of the amount of levy demanded.
There is also concern about the facilities on racecourses from representative bodies such as the TGWU. Through a private Member's Bill, I have spoken about the problems on British racecourses, and in that debate I repeated a statement made by senior people in the industry that it is a miracle that there have not been any major accidents on our racecourses, as there have been in other sporting

venues. Other parts of the industry are continually arguing and bickering among themselves. Those who are involved in breeding are very worried about the inability of management to get across the message that they are losing business to other EEC countries. That is not a new problem. A few years ago, the Royal Commission on gambling, chaired by Lord Rothschild, reported on the need for a restructuring of the industry. The levy board has called for a financial inquiry into the state of the industry. That was reported in Update on 15 February 1989. The Horseracing Advisory Council has said exactly the same. It would be nonsense to pretend that concern is not felt throughout the industry.
The industry must be reshaped before a measure such as this reaches the statute book. If hon. Members doubt that assertion, they should read the debates on racing. They would then realise that the majority of people in the industry have called for its reshaping. My British Racing Commission Bill seeks to reshape the industry. I did not just sit down and draft the Bill because I thought that that was the new shape that the industry ought to adopt. It was drafted after many consultations with every organisation in the racing industry. Their views have been taken into account. I hope that my Bill will reach the statute book.
A Bill such as this ought not to proceed while the management structure remains as it is. The industry as it is now managed, particularly by the Jockey Club, is incapable of accepting change. The Royal Commission on gambling, which reported in 1975, referred to the urgent need to restructure the industry, and particularly the Jockey Club. It referred to the need for a senior management board to cover all aspects of the industry, including betting, racegoers, punters and the media who provide daily reports about racing. The Commission said:
It is a curious but perhaps appropriate feature of the Jockey Club that its secretariat should be bred rather than recruited.
That says it all about the industry. It is in a heck of a mess. It would be absolute madness to allow Sunday racing.
Many eminent people in the industry believe that a major restructuring is needed before there is any extension of racing. Major parts of the industry are finding it difficult to cope.

Mr. Holt: Name one person. If large numbers of people in the industry claim that it is turmoil and needs restructuring, I am suggesting that the hon. Gentleman names one of them.

Mr. Meale: I could list person after person who has thought about the need for restructuring the industry. I could give many examples.

Mr. Holt: Name one.

Mr. Meale: I could quote many individuals. The hon. Gentleman who continues to shout, "Name one" is typical of the attitude problem of people who manage the racing industry at present. Part of the rot is that many people in the industry fear the people who run it. Stable staff, jockeys, apprentice jockeys and people who work in betting shops—even people holding senior posts in the racing and betting industry—continually complain about various aspects of that industry.
I remind the hon. Gentleman about our conversations in the Corridors of the House and elsewhere. I remind him about my conversations with the organisations for whom he is a consultant.

Mr. Holt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me about our conversations in the Corridors. I recall his telling me that he became interested in and knowledgeable about the betting industry as a result of one local bookmaker in his constituency. Perhaps if he had spent a lifetime in the industry, as I have, he would know a bit more about it.

Mr. Meale: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman recalls that, but I recall that particular conversation quite vividly and that was only one aspect of it. I shall remind the hon. Gentleman about the reason why I became involved in the industry. When I came to Parliament, I was asked by people in the east midlands to take up the cause of people employed in the racing industry. Occasionally people had raised some matters, but no one had been involved on a regular basis. Like other people, I thought that I would do something, but not become fully involved. However, after examining the feudal circumstances within the industry, and seeing how people were treated in that feudal environment, I agreed to take up their cause. I ask the hon. Gentleman to recall conversations in the House with senior persons in the industry about the anger within the industry. If the hon. Gentleman wishes I shall repeat those conversations across the Chamber. But I would rather not go into that and shall allow them to remain confidential.
It is symptomatic of what is wrong with the industry that every section is afraid of the section above. It is no good hon. Gentlemen shaking their heads and saying that it is not true. Racing journalists have come to me and said, "We cannot raise that matter because if we do we shall not get any information elsewhere." I have met people involved in training who say, "If you say publicly that I gave you this information, I shall probably lose my licence". Whether or not that is true, they are worried about losing their licences and that is why the industry needs reshaping.
The hon. Member for Crawley and my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe spoke about misbehaviour in the industry. Hon. Members will be surprised that I commend the Jockey Club on its approach to that problem. On 21 November 1988 it sent me details of the action it was taking to control crowd behaviour. That shows that it is taking seriously the problems that might occur on British racecourses if there were an extension of operations. Such problems have occurred for a considerable time at evening meetings and some weekend meetings. I pay tribute to the work it has done and to the proposals it has produced, which go a long way towards solving the problem.
However, I must ask whether the House should accept that the Jockey Club is capable of carrying out the recommendations. It has done nothing fundamental yet and the problem still recurs occasionally. I have talked to the Jockey Club about various aspects of its work and I pay tribute to its work on security and fraud, which it has developed in recent years after the recruitment of a senior steward from Australia. It has tried to implement security systems to solve the problem of crowd control. However, I do not think that it has yet reached the stage at which we should allow racing to be extended. New management techniques and structures should be introduced.
The Horseracing Advisory Council was set up as a sop to the industry. It was decided that the industry should be restructured, but the Government did not agree to set up the type of body required for an industry that accumulates

billions of pounds every year and which involves thousands of people. The key word in the title of that organisation is "advisory". The Government formed the council, but gave it no teeth. However, it is representative of all organisations within the industry and I value its judgment. It supports Sunday racing and I am not surprised about that because many senior people within the industry support Sunday racing and are campaigning for it.
Section 5 of the report published by the Horseracing Advisory Council says:
HAC supports the view that the campaign for Sunday racing should be divorced from any Sunday trading legislation with concentration on parliamentary lobbying, rather than on a public campaign, and on betting legislation reform.
It goes on:
We are, however, concerned that what is potentially the most effective way of covering I he additional cost created by Sunday racing, namely the addition of licensed betting offices being open off-course, could prove the one serious stumbling block to the overall objective of Sunday racing in this country.
It also says:
We therefore feel that, if the opening of betting shops in the High Street should prove the major impediment to the realisation of Sunday racing, any alternative paths towards Sunday racing with the provision of legal betting facilities must be kept in mind and then explored as to their feasibility.
The council is saying that it would prefer to have betting shops—that is what the Government are insisting on—but it is irrelevant to the racing industry. The industry simply wants Sunday racing and that is the point that the hon. Member for Crawley was trying to make. It is about people who want to watch racing.
The Transport and General Workers Union and the SLA are in that organisation but they represent a minority of the feelings within the industry. The industry is saying that it is not really concerned about whether betting shops are open as long as there is Sunday racing.
The report also says:
Those Member Associations involved have emphasised the disproportionately high costs compared to the extra physical hours worked, the need to employ supplementary staff who are skilled in the handling of thoroughbred horses and the socially disruptive consequences to the lives of the staff concerned. In the light of these effects HAC believes consideration should be given to the introduction of a 'dark' day in lieu of Sunday, especially if the experimental fixtures lead to a more widespread demand for Sunday meetings.
The key word is "experimental". We are talking only about 12 days, but it will probably mean three meetings on each of those days. That could mean between three and 36 communities being disrupted by racing throughout the year. An amendment could easily further extend the number of days. In its report on Sunday racing, the Horseracing Advisory Council said that it was art experiment. Paragraph 4 of the report states:
We recognise that, if the experiment was a success, Sunday racing would become a feature for most of the year. Also the fact that betting shops would be open 52 Sundays a year from the outset would put pressure on the racing industry to produce Sunday fixtures to meet off-course betting market demand.
The advisory council says that the industry is not ready because it cannot meet the criteria in the Bill.
The chairman of the all-party group referred to polling. Before I was a Member of Parliament, I worked in this place as an assistant. Before that, I worked in an organisation in which I occasionally had to deal with polling. I attended a meeting at which senior people in the


Labour party expressed concern about the fact that we were nine points behind in the polling between elections. For some idiotic reason, the senior Labour party officials at the meeting decided to invest in polling. Eight weeks after we invested in polling, we were three points ahead.
As he read out one set of polling documents, the chairman of the all-party group recalled that the polling questionnaires were in racecourse cards at race courses. There was a captive audience, but there was only a 75 per cent. response.

Mr. Martlew: Does my hon. Friend believe that if questionnaires had been put in church hymn books and people were asked whether they wanted Sunday racing, opposite results would have been obtained?

Mr. Meale: That is a good point, and I hope to expand on it.
I have one of the advertisements that were placed in the national racing press. People leaving racecourses were asked if they wanted another day out at the races. The same applies to Sunday trading. The MORI polling organisation hired people in Northampton and sent them to my constituency to stand outside DIY centres on a Sunday morning and ask people whether they believed in Sunday opening. Of course they did. They were in the DIY shops, buying stuff on a Sunday. They would not say that they did not believe in it. It is important to consider how polls are conducted. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) is right. If we put the same questionnaire in every hymn book in every church in the United Kingdom, we would have a different view. I am interested in the polling of betting office staff who work in the most deplorable conditions in the industry.

Mr. Holt: That is rubbish.

Mr. Meale: If he thinks that, the hon. Gentleman is talking out of the back of his head. The hon. Gentleman would not work in any betting shop for those wages and in those conditions.

Mr. Holt: I did.

Mr. Meale: If the hon. Gentleman did, he soon got out and became a Member of Parliament on £20,000 odd a year.

Mr. Holt: I do not have to work so hard here.

Mr. Meale: He probably does not. That is all the more reason for those people to get more pay and better conditions.
My interest in polling is that it shows that 95 per cent. of betting office staff do not want the Bill. A majority of TGWU members on the stable side do not want Sunday racing. Those who do—they are in the minority, although it is a large minority—tend to be young people. They still believe that they will become top-class jockeys and come to the fore of their industry. Statistics show that to be nonsense because one new entrant in 4,000 reaches the professional rank of jockey. The SLA and TGWU, which represent both stable staff and betting office staff, are against the Bill.
Let us take an independent polling organisation. On 4 February The Racing Post reported on a survey carried out by an independent organisation, the London-based Survey

Research Associates. Interviews were carried out at 52 sampling points throughout Britain on 13 and 14 January. The survey shows that 51 per cent. are in favour of Sunday racing and that 45 per cent. said that betting shops should not be open. Obviously, the people who paid for the survey wanted Sunday racing. They did not expect that 45 per cent. would not want betting shops to open.
The TGWU, which is the major trade union in the industry, whether or not Tory Members like it, has made a good statement. It is good because it does not fit the image put out by the national media, the press and people in senior positions in racing, that racing is stuck in the 1800s. It states:
The TGWU is a very broadly based Trade Union having membership in virtually every industry in the country. Because of which it already has many members who are obliged to work on Sunday. For example; it is the overwhelmingly predominant Union in the Bus industry, and in many areas of manufacturing there are continuous processes which require a measure of Sunday working. In consequence there is no policy of total opposition to Sunday working within the TGWU in general, although in all sectors of the Union, the importance of Sunday as a leisure day with the requirement to minimise Sunday working is clearly recognised.
In so far as the Racing Industry is concerned, Stable staff already have Sunday working as part of their contract of employment because it is necessary to provide care for the horses. Within the national agreement, there is provision for the payment of overtime, in recognition of this fact.
Sunday working is kept to a minimum in order that maximum numbers of Stable staff can have a day with their families. If Sunday Racing was introduced this would change the Sunday from a minimum day of working to a full day of working and racing would be on a seven day week basis. There is a great concern for the well being and leisure time of the stable staff in this situation.
As far as betting shops are concerned they are currently covered by Law which restrict their opening time to Monday to Saturday and the only real leisure day which the staff are able to spend with their family is the Sunday. Because of the very full Saturday and Bank holiday Racing programme Rest days can only be taken between Monday and Thursday, when their families are possibly at work or school etc. If the shops were allowed to open on a Sunday then in all probability they would be offered an alternative rest day also in the earliest part of the week which would seriously weaken their domestic situation still further.
For this reason the TGWU has adopted a policy that it must oppose the introduction of Sunday Racing unless and until satisfactory terms and conditions to protect our members' interest are agreed with the various bodies. Because of the provisions of the national agreement for stable staff we are in a fairly strong negotiating position and are moving towards the framework of an agreement. However, in the past, efforts to secure negotiating rights with Mecca, Ladbrokes and William Hill have not been successful, therefore, the policy of the TGWU has been that we would reluctantly accept Sunday racing with on course betting but would oppose the opening of betting shops.
Although some progress has now been made with Coral Racing … on the Sunday racing provisions we have not as yet reached a satisfactory conclusion. Unless or until we do reach an understanding it would be difficult to move our policy".
That is very important. That is a shift from the image that some Conservative Members present of the union's approach towards the racing industry. I stand four square with my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, who says that we should move towards the position where we can expand and, perhaps, give people the opportunity to enjoy racing on a Sunday. It is nonsense, however, to inflict it at present when we have the inadequate position in the racing industry, where the betting industry itself


cannot and will not agree on proper terms, conditions and times of working for the people whom this measure would most affect.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Workers in other trade unions may be affected, although more indirectly. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a statement of a member of the planning inspectorate who said in relation to a planning appeal:
It is now generally accepted that betting offices are an integral part of shopping activities.
That means, of course, that other shopworkers are deeply concerned about the issue. It might mean that, if betting shops opened, it would be said, "Oh how dreadful it is, you can place a bet, but you cannot buy butter in the high streets." Many workers are therefore at risk.

Mr. Meale: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. She is quite right. If one wishes to examine the attitude of senior betting organisations towards people employed in the industry and represented by the unions, all one needs to do is to read a letter sent to Brian Cox, the national official of the Transport and General Workers Union, by a Mr. Burroughs, who is group director of personnel at Ladbroke Group plc. It says:
Dear Mr. Cox,
We refer to your two letters dated 9th and 14th November 1987 addressed to Sir Cyril Stein, and would point out that, as yet, he has not had a knighthood conferred upon him."—
He wrote the letter to Sir Cyril Stein. It continues:
You have stated nothing which is materially different to that mentioned in earlier correspondence, and our reason for rejecting your proposal for a meeting in the past remains the same as of now.
That was a great opportunity lost to the betting industry to meet the representatives of those working in' the industry to establish some common sense in the conditions of the people employed in that industry.
The hon. Member for Crawley said that he did not believe that such a Bill could proceed if proper arrangements were not made for the stabling industry. I appreciate his concern to try to extract guarantees for the people who work in the industry. It would be nonsense if the House approved the Bill to allow Sunday racing before the terms and conditions of the workers had been agreed. I have been informed in the past few hours that negotiations on those terms and conditions have failed to reach any agreement.
I share the concern of the hon. Member for Crawley and I draw his attention to a letter sent to me on 16 November 1987 by the Jockey Club. In paragraph 3 on page 2 it states:
However, at our Sunday Racing Industry Conference at Sandown Park"—
my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe referred to this earlier—
General Blacker, Chairman of the Jockey Club Sunday Racing Campaign made clear that before Sunday racing can be successfully introduced financial and working arrangements must be negotiated for all who work within the industry.
Agreement has not been reached and little leeway has been shown about such proposals.

Mr. Holt: indicated dissent.

Mr. Meale: Again, I note that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is shaking his head, but I have in my hand the statement on Sunday racing sent to the National Trainers Federation, the Horseracing Advisory

Council and the Jockey Club. The unions are not asking for enormous amounts of money, but £20 a day for travelling fees and such things. Such demands do not even meet the criteria of people who work in shops and factories and who get double time for working on Sundays. Those proposals, however, have been rejected.
If one accepts that the Jockey Club is the senior management body in racing—obviously the hon. Member for Langbaurgh does—it is clear from its statements that the Bill should not proceed, because no agreement has been reached with the industry's unions.
Reference has been made to the state of some of the courses used by the racing industry. We all know about some of the harrowing details that have emerged and that appear to be the norm in the industry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath was correct in saying that nothing should be done about Sunday racing until people are aware of, and made to respond to, the needs of the workers.
Some time ago during a discussion on my British Racing Commission Bill I spoke about the harrowing state of some of our racecourses. After that debate some people suggested that I had received information from organisations about some of the bad courses. The hon. Member for Berkshire, East, however, knows that I was complimentary about the work that is being done at Ascot , which, I believe, is in his constituency. Some people might argue that I visited two good courses followed by five bad courses and, as the bad ones backed up my argument, I presented my report in that light. That is nonsense. I got up in the early hours of the morning and, with my wife, visited courses around Britain to look at the facilities. I did not merely stand at the winning post to watch horses win or lose. I turned up at courses at 8 o'clock in the morning and saw horses being unloaded at some courses, and kept in disgraceful and disgusting conditions. I have seen horsebox drivers and stable staff—many of whom are young or very old—queueing for buckets of water to wash down animals after they have raced. They work under the most deplorable and disgraceful conditions. The hon. Member for Cleveland raised that valid point—

Mr. Holt: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would get my constituency right. I do not represent the whole of Cleveland—just one of its six constituencies, Langbaurgh.

Mr. Meale: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I remember him from the days when he was further away and a Member of the European Parliament—I do not know whether he still is.

Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman's evidence on my background is about as factual as most of his one hour five minute diatribe. I have never been a Member of the European Parliament.

Mr. Meale: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for giving him that tribute.
The hon. Member for Langbaurgh raised a valid point about the failure of the Horserace Betting Levy Board and other organisations to respond to the needs of those who work at racecourses. That is a central part of my argument and is the major reason why the Bill should not proceed. A new senior management and approach are needed within the industry.
Before Sunday racing is introduced we should provide the vital extra training and education which will be


necessary for those employed in the industry. There are already many inexperienced people in the industry and more will join because experienced racing and betting staff are leaving in droves. There is very little training in the industry and certainly not enough to meet its requirements. It would be absolute madness to introduce Sunday racing without first establishing sufficient training facilities. There is already extreme difficulty in recruiting to both sections of the industry. If Sunday trading is introduced, more people will be employed and it would be crazy not to provide extra training for them. Therefore, I urge hon. Members not to support the Bill.
I have much more to say, but I keep being passed notes and given nods by my hon. Friends asking me to give way to other hon. Members who may wish to speak on a Bill which will, if enacted, affect so many people.
It is doubtful whether trainers will be able to cope if Sunday racing is introduced. The hon. Member for Crawley will recall that at the Sandown Park conference trainers were split on Sunday racing for two reasons. First, some trainers did not believe that owners could meet the increased costs that would be levied. Secondly, they did not know whether their staff could cope with more work.
I have not read out the relevant figures, but if Conservative Members wish me to do so, I certainly shall. Magazines such as Horse and Hound, The Sporting Life and The Racing Post—all top horseracing journals—contain harrowing articles. They are about people who work in stables having to deal individually with up to 10 horses during the working day. Already the agreement says that those people have to work seven days and it also says that they should go in only to feed the horses on Sundays. That is not true. They do not exercise horses on Sundays but in many of the poorer areas they work seven days a week. If hon. Members would like me to do so I shall give examples of that. If the Bill would allow trainers to force stable staff to work more hours than they now work during a six-day week that would be a disgrace.
We also need to discuss the breeding industry before we enact legislation such as this. Hon. Members spoke about the EEC. The breeding industry is in a terrible state because the Government have not acted on EEC directives on VAT.

Mrs. Currie: indicated dissent.

Mr. Meale: The hon. Member of Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) seems to disagree. Our breeders are paying 15 per cent. on thoroughbred stock whereas in Ireland there is a zero rate and the rate is 5·5 per cent. in France and 7·5 per cent. in Germany. Already our breeding industry is moving to Ireland because of zero rating.

Mr. Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow, but I wonder whether you could help me. I understood that the debate was about Sunday sport. I am unclear about why we should have to listen to a diatribe about breeding.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Although conventionally a Second Reading debate is allowed to go wide, it is my view that the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) is going a lot wider than is proper. I hope that he will return more closely to the subject of the Bill.

Mr. Meale: I raised the matter of breeding because it is connected to Sunday racing. People are having great difficulty in getting and selling horses. If any hon. Member has any doubts about whether breeding has anything to do with Sunday racing he should look to see what happens in France where various grades of horse racing takes place on Sundays. That is completely against a European convention and that view will be strengthened after 1992. The French are organising races for French-bred horses. If we introduce Sunday racing we will present an opportunity for French and Irish-bred horses to come here. Those countries have restrictions that prevent our horses from running there and that is in no way fair to our horse breeding industry.
I should like to discuss many other aspects of this matter, and one is the important Single European Act. Many areas need to be tackled, one of which is protection for our work force. We need to talk about Mr. Papandreou's view of workers in industry participating in sport. An hon. Member spoke about the effect that the Bill would have on the greyhound industry. That is important because that industry has seen a gigantic increase in betting and that increase has been promoted by the bookmakers. If the Bill becomes law people will not go into a betting shop on Sunday morning and wait until the first race at 2.30. People will bet on other things while they wait for the first race to begin and they will even bet on things in between those races.
Hon. Members must be aware that there are many registered and unregistered courses in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland at which races take place and people can bet on them. Bag services could operate at courses if betting shops are not open.
Betting shops are also concerned with greyhound racing. All betting shops deduct 10 per cent. of people's money; 8 per cent. goes on tax and only 0·88 per cent. goes to the levy and the industry. Before we pass this Bill, we must consider its effects on horse racing and greyhound racing. We must consider why the bookmakers are allowed to pocket 2 per cent. of punters' money. Will we clear those matters up in the Bill?
We should reject the Bill. It is a bad Bill and a betting Bill. Let us rid ourselves of it and get down to some constructive things on behalf of sport in general.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) spoke for an hour and a quarter. I hope that he will forgive me if I say that he could have compressed his arguments into 15 minutes. They would have been better for that. As a consequence of his speech, hon. Members on both sides of the House who know a lot about this issue will be excluded from the debate, and I regret that.
I want to consider the Government's attitude about Sunday sports. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) on bringing forward this Bill. As the debate has clearly shown, a range of questions must be answered about Sunday sport in general and Sunday racing in particular. The Bill plainly gives the House an opportunity to express a view, and it perhaps offers some answers to those questions.
It may be helpful if I start by stating the Government's view. In broad terms, the Government support the Bill. That will not surprise hon. Members because we have supported two previous Bills on this matter. We will be happy to see the Bill make progress for a variety of reasons which I propose to outline concisely.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) said in a most impressive speech, a variety of sporting events already take place on Sundays. My hon. Friend itemised them and they include tennis, cricket, golf, soccer, motor racing, athletics, badminton, hockey and no doubt many other activities. For the life of me, I can see no reason in principle why we should not make it easier for Sunday racing to do likewise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley explained that a number of sporting organisations which hold events on Sundays resort to a variety of strategems to avoid the Sunday Observance Act 1780. I do not like strategems to be used for that purpose. I should be much happier to bring clarity to the law, which is the effect of clause 1.
I question whether the right hon. and hon. Members who passed the 1780 Act had in mind the holding of sporting events in general or of racing in particular. The House may be interested to learn the preamble to that Act, which explains what was in the minds of those legislators 200 years ago. The preamble, which I have edited slightly
to avoid repetition, states:
Whereas certain houses, rooms or places within the cities of London or Westminster … have of late frequently been opened for public entertainment or amusement upon the evening of the Lord's day, commonly called Sunday … under pretence of inquiring into religious doctrines, and explaining texts of Holy Scripture, debates have frequently been held on the evening of the Lord's day concerning divers texts of Holy Scripture, by persons unlearned and incompetent to explain the same, to the corruption of good morals, and to the great encouragement of irreligion and profaneness; be it enacted.
In other words, that statute had nothing to do with kicking a ball or riding a horse; it had everything to do with the publication of false doctrine. That is to say, it had to do with practices of the kind in which some right hon. and hon. Members, but particularly Opposition Members, engage on most week days.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman, as a Home Office Minister, can surely confirm that there is no law against kicking a ball or riding a horse on Sunday. If the Bill was only about that, we would not be arguing against it.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, (Mr. Beith) is right, though one might derive the impression from speeches made by some right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House that that is what the Bill is about.
I turn to the way in which the Bill fits into our concept of betting. I begin with a personal observation. I know that I shall cause offence to my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), but personally I have no great sympathy with betting. I am not an enthusiast of betting; I have always regarded it as a waste of time and money. But this is not a betting Bill, and right hon. and hon. Members should not allow their prejudices about betting to colour their judgment.

Mr. Dennis Turner: Why is it, then, that the Minister, in his earlier deliberations, insisted that provision be made in the Bill for betting shops to open?

Mr. Hogg: For precisely the reason I shall explain. I start from the premise that I am not an enthusiast of betting, and personally, regard it as a waste of time and money. However, it would be wrong for us as individuals to allow our personal prejudices, to the extent that they exist, to interfere with a reasoned judgment as to need.
I believe that there is an intrinsic need to provide a mechanism for lawful betting on days that racing takes place, and that is what the Bill does. If we were to allow racing on Sunday without making proper provision for off-course betting, there would be a growth in unlawful betting. If that happened, I believe that it would spill over to other days of the week. I start from the considered view that one cannot allow racing on Sunday without providing also for off-course betting. I understand why the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed does not like betting. He does not like gambling. I do not like gambling either, but I think it wrong to start from the premise that because betting shops will have to be open for 12 extra days a year we should place a prohibition on all sporting activities on Sunday, and racing in particular. That is the wrong way round.

Mr. Randall: On this interesting point of illegal betting, how does the Minister square what he has just said with the comments made by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) about evening racing? The hon. Gentleman is an expert on these things and he seems to think that evening racing has not given rise to increased illegal betting.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has forstalled me because I was about to reply precisely to that point and to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) about Ireland.

Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg: No; I must proceed, because time is running on.
I recognise the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh and I am not trying to denigrate him. However, three points need 1.o be made about evening racing. First, high grade racing does not take place in the evening, according to the advice that I have been given, whereas the racing industry intends to put on high quality racing on Sundays. Secondly, as a rule, evening racing is not televised, whereas it might be the intention of the television companies to televise Sunday racing. Thirdly, it is one thing to say to a customer at a betting shop who is there at 6 o'clock, "You can bet on the 7·30 at" wherever it may be. It is another thing to say to a punter on Saturday, "Is not the time right for you to put a bet on the Sunday race at" wherever it may be? On the whole, people like to put their bets on fairly close in time to the event, because runners are scratched, conditions may change or the race may not be held.

Mr. Holt: Punters want to put bets on at the latest possible moment to get the best possible price. It has noting to do with anything other than pure old-fashioned greed. I find my hon. Friend's arguments slightly illogical in that he is talking about the grading of racing. I assure him that the vast majority of the hundreds of people who go to the betting shops of which I have knowledge are not interested in whether the owner will win £10,000 or £5,000—they are interested in whether they can make a winning bet. The quality of racing is irrelevant.

Mr. Hogg: It may be irrelevant to individuals, but it is almost certainly relevant to the volume of betting that is likely to occur.

Mr. Holt: No.

Mr. Hogg: The cumulative effect of the three considerations that I put to the House makes the comparison unsound.
The same is true about Ireland. I urge two considerations on the right hon. Member for Small Heath. First, in Ireland the majority of race courses are close to the main centres of population. Therefore, those who wish to place bets have easy recourse to the on-course betting facilities. Secondly—I have no personal knowledge of this, but I have been advised and I accept that advice—the majority of off-course betting in Ireland is done on English racing, so once again the comparison is not useful.

Mr. Holt: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hogg: No. I wish to press on because I am trying to keep my speech to a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes to allow other hon. Members to speak.
A number of hon. Members have been worried about the effect of the Bill on Sunday trading in general. The Bill is not a stalking horse for Sunday trading legislation. It stands wholly separate and wholly apart. Hon. Members can express their prejudices in a debate of this kind, but there is nothing in the Bill that has a direct impact on Sunday trading. It does not have even an indirect impact on Sunday trading. It deals with a particular problem—the prohibition of a variety of sporting events for which a charge is made on Sunday.
To turn to the employment protection clause, a number of hon. Members including my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley, have expressed anxiety about those with existing contracts of employment. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East has tackled the problem in an extremely responsible way. He has provided that those with existing contracts of employment should not be prejudiced as a result of the legislation. That is right. However, he has also said by implication that we cannot build similar safeguards into prospective contracts of employment. That is quite right, too.
There is a variety of occupations in which people have to work on Sundays—the fire service, the police, hospitals, power stations, garages, the transport industry. Even hon. Members—whom some people may suppose are not essential—have to work on Sundays. We cannot say that they are obliged to do that, whereas jockeys and stable lads are not. It is for them to decide whether they want to go into an occupation that may have that consequence.

Mr. Lofthouse: We cannot compare essential services with betting shops, which are certainly not essential on Sundays. The Government have recently extended drinking hours in public houses to 3 o'clock on Sunday afternoons. Are we not steadily eroding Sunday as we have known it? Ought not the Sabbath to be kept special? This is the thin end of the wedge. Before we know where we are, it will not be 12 Sundays but even more Sundays. Does the Minister share my view that the Bill would be more acceptable if no betting shops could be opened on Sundays?

Mr. Hogg: The Bill might then be more acceptable to some of its opponents, but I have already made the point

that in the opinion of the Home Office it is necessary to allow off and on-course betting on Sundays, for the reasons that I have already given. As for essential services, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) blew the hon. Gentleman out of the water. The right hon. Gentleman aptly remarked that if one goes to Blackpool or Cornwall on a summer Sunday one sees that the sea fronts are stacked full of operations being worked by people—roundabouts and whirligigs, ice cream parlours and this and that. They are not essential services, but they are providing a service. Now that we have identified that kind of service, nobody could call them essential services. However, they are services that many people happen to perform as part of their contract of employment. We cannot make a distinction in principle between jockeys and people who look after dodgem cars. They are not different in kind.
Each hon. Member will view the Bill in the context of his beliefs about Sunday as a whole. I respect and understand the views of those who, as a matter of conscientious conviction, wish to retain the present pattern of Sundays.
Speaking on behalf of the Government, and expressing my view, the balance of the Bill is right. I very much dislike the concept of prohibiting what is now covered by clause 1. I welcome the liberalisation of the law, and I think that it is desirable to introduce limited betting to safeguard the proper observance of the law. The position of existing employees is properly protected in the Bill, and I should like it to be considered in Committee.

Mr. Stuart Randall: The debate has been very stimulating. Although I am opposed to the Bill, I believe that the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) has done the House, racing, entertainment and British people a service. I very much hope that the points that have been rasied in the debate can be built on so that we can reach an agreement that will be good for those who enjoy the sport, those outside the sport, religious groups and those with moral views on the matter. That is a good thing. We are all for racing. There is no question about that. It is just a question of how we link it to betting.
I was disappointed by some of the bad humour earlier in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) is very knowledgable on these matters and expressed concern about the sensitivity surrounding the issue. I was sorry that the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) responded as he did. I do not think that it added to the debate. Nevertheless it demonstrated that sensitivity and concern exist and are being expressed in the correspondence that we receive on the subject.
Unquestionably, the issue is sensitive and the solution in the Bill is not satisfactory. The Bill is based on straight deregulation. No Bill based upon straight deregulation will get through the House. It is necessary to win over a great many people in the country and achieve a consensus. We have to reach a balance, and the notion of using a free-market approach to deregulation, forgetting everyone's feelings, will not win. The Opposition will never support the Bill, although we support racing, until we have an assurance that the 100,000 or so people who operate the industry will have


a decent standard of living, reasonable terms and conditions of employment, and so on. Those matters have to be taken into account. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Berkshire, East mentioned the appalling conditions in which stable lads work.
We also have to take account of the sensitivities of members of the Church and those who believe that Sunday should be kept special. Some Conservative Members tend to dismiss such things because they consider that only the market matters, but we feel that even those who are not believers should take those matters into account in reaching a balanced solution. We advocate a balanced solution.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Does my hon. Friend not find it rather puzzling that the Conservative party considers itself to be the party of tradition, yet is subject to the very gross forces of commercialism and latterly has totally yielded to commercial pressures? That distinguished grocer from Grantham who apparently inspired the Prime Minister would be turning in his grave at what is now being done in the name of the Conservative party.

Mr. Randall: That is a good point. One of my hon. Friends referred to Conservative Members as, "modern Tories". They are not such nice people as the old Tories. This deregulation approach is associated with the modern Tories, and the old Tories with their traditional ways would despise it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Outside the House I heard the new-fangled Tory party described as the political wing of the SAS.

Mr. Randall: That is an interesting point but one has to look at the matter more sensitively.
I do not think that anybody would disagree with the fact that British law is currently being brought into disrepute. It is irrational that some sports and gambling activities can take place on a Sunday but others cannot. We have to find a solution. I do not believe that the Bill as it stands is the right solution. One cannot punch through the problem with a Bill such as this. We have to ensure that we take account of the views of all the interested groups.

Mrs. Wise: In the list of those whose views and interests that have to be considered, would my hon. Friend care to include children? The Bill would affect the children of the employees who would have to work on Sundays in betting shops and shops in general. It would also affect the children whose parents would be spending their time in betting shops instead of at home.

Mr. Randall: My hon. Friend has made a good point. As the party of the family, the Labour party takes such things into account. The Conservative party believes that everything depends on the market. Deregulation is based only on the market and does not take family values into account.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) mentioned the children of those who work in the industry and those who would go to betting shops on a Sunday if they were open. Those children have to be taken into account. The progress we make must he based on consensus, and that, in turn, must be based on respecting the views of all the interested groups.

Mr. James Couchman: I apologise for not having been here earlier but I was taking part in a phone-in on my local radio station. I was there with a member of the Keep Sunday Special campaign. He told me that the campaign is interested in deregulation on the basis of recreation, emergencies, social gatherings and travel. Does the hon. Gentleman find it strange that the Keep Sunday Special campaign should oppose the Bill, as there can be nothing more recreational or a. bigger social gathering than the Wimbledon finals, the grand prix or many of the Sunday games that take place?

Mr. Randall: I was about to come to the Keep Sunday Special campaign, which has made suggestions. The campaigners recognise that everybody should, if they so desire, go out and enjoy their racing. It is simply attempting to find a balanced solution to the betting problem. We know that the two things are inseparable and, therefore, to look at racing without taking betting into account would be absurd.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman started by saying that he is much in favour of racing. He went on to say that the Bill is not the right way to proceed, that there must be consensus and that we must all rally round. I do not want him to disappoint the House, but would he be good enough to say exactly how we could arrive at that conclusion?

Mr. Randall: I shall comment on the hon. Gentleman's intervention and then continue with my speech. There are two possibilities. First, the Irish have racing on Sundays. Irish racing operates in a similar way to the proposals that were put forward by the Keep Sunday Special people. They propose that we should have racing, but allow betting to take place on Saturday. The horses would be named on Friday, the betting would take place on Saturday and the racing would take place on Sunday. I understand that the group put that proposal to the hon. Member for Berkshire, East but it was rejected.

Mr. Anderson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Randall: I will not give way. I have been allowing too many interventions and I am losing the thread of my speech.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Randall: I am not giving way for the moment.

Mr. Hogg: There is on-course betting.

Mr. Randall: I accept that there is on-course betting, and the Keep Sunday Special Campaign—mainly Christian people—accept on-course betting on a Sunday. Off-course betting is the stumbling block.
Will the Home Office keep an eye on what is happening in Ireland to see what lessons can be learned and find out about illegal betting?
Secondly, in the next five or so years, there will be a technological solution, and we need to keep an eye on it. Again, I hope that the Home Office will look at this matter. A problem arises because workers will be required to take bets and man betting shop tills. But one can make instantaneous banking transactions—electronic cash transactions—through one's home telephone. Developments are taking place rapidly and it will be possible for people to carry out such transactions in their own homes. At the moment, we have a system of credit


card payments. It is limited to people with sufficiently high credit ratings, but it proves that there is a demand for home gambling transactions. With the development of home terminals—we can buy them now—and the new phones that will come on to the market in the near future, it will be possible to carry out cash transactions, possibly even using phonecard-type technology.
In answer to the hon. Member for Crawley, those two matters are the possible bases on which we should build. I hope that the Minister will examine the matter and write to me about his views on those possibilities.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I will send the hon. Gentleman a postcard.

Mr. Randall: The Minister contemptuously said that he will send a postcard.

Mr. Hogg: Rubbish.

Mr. Randall: The Minister says, "Rubbish." His reason for saying that is his obsession with illegal gambling. He is worried about it because it might grow and, therefore, revenue to the Exchequer will drop. That is his only concern. I am deeply worried that the Home Office is showing such contempt for the racing industry that it is not prepared to build on the legislation.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: The House is anxious to know where the Opposition stand. We have moved a little nearer since the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames). The hon. Gentleman seems to be in favour of Sunday sport, Sunday racing and gambling on Sunday provided that it is on-course, and happy with off-course betting provided that it is high-tech. In other words all we are waiting for is high-tech and then he will be in favour of the Bill. I am not sure that all of his hon. Friends agree. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) definitely disagreed with him, so he needs to clarify the position for his hon. Friend's benefit.

Mr. Randall: I can sum up what we are saying. The hon. Gentleman has not summed it up well. Several points that he made were incorrect.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Answer the question.

Mr. Randall: I have just said that I will tell the hon. Gentleman. I do not need him to decide what I am saying. We must carry out a study of what is happening in Ireland because the system is in operation there and we must learn from it. That seems reasonable. For the longer term we must consider other technological methods. For several years I was in the banking industry and I picked up information on this which is coming rapidly to fruition. I hope that the racing industry will take that into account.

Mr. Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Randall: No, I shall proceed because I have had too many interruptions.
Hon. Members referred to the Bill's impact on family life. We must have consensus or the Bill will not proceed. We must have the agreement of Church groups and those in the industry. The conditions of some of those who work in the racing industry are a disgrace to the nation. Stable lads are treated appallingly. We should be ashamed of their working conditions, pay, security and the way in

which they are often intimidated by trainers. In reviewing and building a case for racing, which could include Sunday racing, we must take those matters into account.
There are 100,000 people working in the industry and they are strongly opposed to the Bill. Who is in favour of racing on Sunday? I suppose it is the gambling industry. It is a multi-billion pound industry and its turnover and profits will increase. We have no objections to that—[Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen scoff. That is absurd. If the industry is not viable, racing will not be viable. If anyone disputed that, it would be remarkable.

Mr. Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Randall: No, I am not giving way again because I have run out of time and others wish to speak.
The hon. Member for Berkshire, East said on the Jimmy Young show that people should run their own lives and politicians should not interfere. He said that he despised the nanny state. That is the wrong attitude to adopt in promoting the Bill. If he is to get consensus, one must take many people along with him. His rather narrow attitude is not the way to proceed.
In response to a question from the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), the hon. Gentleman implied that he does not believe that Sunday should be kept special in this respect and that people should decide for themselves. Once people decide for themselves without considering others, one does not have a society,. Again, that is not the way to proceed.
We all welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments about the stable lads, and I am glad that they are on the record. It was interesting to see how appalled the hon. Gentleman was at the conditions of work, the pay and the hours of the stable lads. I believe that the hon. Gentleman saw the stable lads and they shocked him. If nothing else comes out of today, I believe that we all welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Berkshire, East recognised that the conditions of the stable lads are appalling.
I hope that when it comes to working out the levy and the investment in the industry—in which the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is involved—the stable lads will be a serious consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member of Attercliffe made some interesting points. Essentially, he said that he felt that there was a need for a greater balance in the case for racing. We are talking primarily about racing, although I accept that the Bill covers other sports, too. My hon. Friend said that a finer case is needed, which I believe was a good way of making his point. He is an expert on these matters. He referred especially to greater unity within the industry, which I believe is a good point. We must take into account the social consequences on those who work in the industry. My hon. Friend also mentioned the churches. He added that the racing industry is in a healthy state. I gathered from some of the points that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh was making that the racing industry is not down on its heels. It has high revenue. It is unacceptable that an industry that is so relatively opulent has employees who are treated in such an appalling way. If nothing else comes out of today, we have made some progress for stable lads.
The hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) said that he felt that the Bill regularised the situation. I agree. We know that there are no practical constraints on racing. Betting, however, would be a new item. Betting and racing


are inseparable. The hon. Member for Devizes is a member of an all-party racing and bloodstock committee, and he knows that Sunday racing would not be viable unless there was betting, too. The two are inseparable.

Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman probably does not know that the National Association of Bookmakers, and the overwhelming majority of small bookmakers in this country, do not want the betting shops to open on a Sunday. They have asked for them not to be open. The Home Office cannot understand that, and is pressing that matter. The betting industry does not want it.

Mr. Randall: I listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman said. Clearly, if one considers the extra revenues to those companies—the small number of substantial companies—their interest must be to increase their revenues. That is a key motivating force behind the Bill.
The hon. Member for Devizes talked about the anomalies. His point about illegal betting left a lot of questions unanswered. His statistics on illegal betting did not stand up. He added the interesting point that Christians should not impose their views on society.

Sir Charles Morrison: I did not.

Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman did, because I wrote it down.

Sir Charles Morrison: rose—

Mr. Randall: Because I referred to the hon. Gentleman, I shall give way. The hon. Gentleman claims that he did not say that. If he did, however, I believe that it was a just example. Although I am a churchgoer, I do not believe that any group should impose its will on the rest, just as I believe that the Jockey Club should not attempt to impose its will on the racing industry.

Sir Charles Morrison: I did not say that Christians should not impose their views on society. I was quoting what the Bishop of Liverpool had written in the foreword to the Sunday sport booklet.

Mr. Randall: Well, if that is so, it seems that the hon. Gentleman believes that no group should impose its will on the rest of society, and therefore I find it suprising that he intends to support the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) made an interesting speech and he—

Mr. Andrew MacKay: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we should allow the Opposition spokesman to conclude his remarks before putting the Question.

Mr. Randall: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall speedily bring my remarks to a close in the next five minutes.

Mr. Beith: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. The exchanges that took place just now were a little muffled and I was not able to hear what was said.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggested that perhaps the House should hear the views of the spokesman for the

Opposition, but expressed the view that we would have the opportunity to enable the Question to be put before 2.30 pm.

Mr. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What I had understood you to say was that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) must complete his remarks at a certain point. That seems to be a rather dangerous precedent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was expressing the hope, and I do not think that I went beyond that. Let us get on with it. Mr. Randall.

Mr. Randall: I shall conclude as rapidly as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton said that he believed that there was a link between the Bill and Sunday trading. When we discussed the deregulation of the Sunday trading laws—

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Randall: No, I shall not.
The spirit behind the deregulation of the Sunday trading laws coincides with the deregulatory attitude adopted by the hon. Member for Berkshire, East.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton said that in Ireland there is racing on Sundays and that the betting shops are closed. He felt that we should consider following that practice. He also mentioned the trade unions and said that the TGWU and USDAW are opposed to the Bill because of the serious effects that it will have on employees in the industry.
If we are to make progress we must ensure that the terms and conditions of workers, as outlined in the Bill, are made appreciably better. People should be able to feel that they can work on a Sunday if they desire without its having an unacceptable effect on their way of life.
The hon. Member for Crawley spoke about the law being in disrepute and he is correct. As I said in answer to the hon. Gentleman's earlier intervention, the important thing is how we work in the future to re-establish the law's repute. The hon. Gentleman said that he does not believe that the Bill is a stalking horse for Sunday trading, but I am not sure that that is so. I have my doubts and I believe that many people in the country are suspicious. I believe that—

Mr. Andrew MacKay: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be no put.

Question put, That the Question be now put: —

The House divided: Ayes 51, Noes 67.

Division No. 102]
[2.25 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Alexander, Richard
Dorrell, Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Durant, Tony


Atkinson, David
Eggar, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Baldry, Tony
Fraser, John


Bowis, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gow, Ian


Buck, Sir Antony
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cohen, Harry
Holt, Richard


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunt, David (Wirral W)






Janman, Tim
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Knapman, Roger
Summerson, Hugo


Knox, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Waller, Gary


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Walters, Sir Dennis


Morrison, Sir Charles
Wells, Bowen


Nelson, Anthony
Wheeler, John


Rathbone, Tim
Whitney, Ray


Rhodes James, Robert



Richardson, Jo
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ruddock, Joan
Mr. James Couchman and


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. Peter Thurnham.


Sims, Roger



NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Maclennan, Robert


Allen, Graham
Madden, Max


Alton, David
Maginnis, Ken


Anderson, Donald
Marek, Dr John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Martlew, Eric


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Meale, Alan


Battle, John
Michael, Alun


Beggs, Roy
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Benyon, W.
Murphy, Paul


Carrington, Matthew
Nellist, Dave


Corbyn, Jeremy
Paisley, Rev Ian


Cousins, Jim
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cryer, Bob
Quin, Ms Joyce


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Randall, Stuart


Dover, Den
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Skinner, Dennis


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Flynn, Paul
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Spearing, Nigel


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Stanbrook, Ivor


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Straw, Jack


Ground, Patrick
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hinchliffe, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Turner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Jessel, Toby
Wareing, Robert N.


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Widdecombe, Ann


Kennedy, Charles
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McAvoy, Thomas



McCrea, Rev William
Tellers for the Noes:


McCusker, Harold
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy and


Macdonald, Calum A.
Mr A. J. Beith.


McFall, John

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 24 February.

Private Members' Bills

DISABLED PERSONS (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bils).

HOUSING ASSOCIATONS (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 February.

BRITISH RACING COMMISSION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 February.

PLANNING PERMISSION (DEMOLITION OF HOUSES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Second Reading what day?

Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not hear any objection.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day, please?

Mr. Dykes: For this vital Bill, under protest, Friday 24 February.

INTERNATIONAL PARLIAMENTARY ORGANISATIONS (REGISTRATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 February.

CHANNEL TUNNEL ACT 1987 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?

Mr. Robert Adley: In high dudgeon, Friday 14 April.

PLANNING (NOTIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?

Mr. Tony Baldry: With the leave of the proposer, Friday 24 February.

FUEL AND ENERGY PROVISION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 February,

GAMING MACHINES (PROHIBITION ON USE BY PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 March.

HUMAN RIGHTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 March.

HEARING AID COUNCIL (AMENDMENT) BILL

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

COALMINING SUBSIDENCE (DAMAGE, ARBITRATION, PREVENTION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 February.

DEFINITIVE MAP MODIFICATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?

Mr. Tony Baldry: With the leave of the proposer, Friday 24 February.

HEDGEROWS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

RIDERS OF EQUINE ANIMALS (WEARING OF PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 February.

CERVICAL CANCER (TESTING AND TREATMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?

Mr. Alan Meale: With the permission of the proposer, Friday 24 February.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question—[27 January]—That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

JUNIOR HOSPITAL DOCTORS (REGULATION OF HOURS) (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not printed.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you explain the situation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the Bill has not been printed., I cannot put it to the House.

Planning Appeals (Croydon)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Mr. Humfrey Matins: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the subject of planning appeals from the London borough of Croydon. Last November, a lady constituent living in Thornton Heath, which is part of north-west Croydon, informed me that she had received an unsolicited letter from a property company based in Reading. It read :
Please excuse the liberty of writing to you, but we are looking for residential land for development, and we noticed that your property has a large area of land which, subject to planning permission being granted, may be suitable for this purpose. If you would be interested in receiving an offer, substantially in excess of the current market value of your property, we should be pleased to hear from you.
That type of approach is not untypical, and I gather that some property dealers go even further, commissioning helicopters to fly over south London to scan back gardens. My constituent, correctly, resented the approach that was made to her. She spoke to me of the deteriorating quality of life in part of north Croydon, where she felt that there had been too much development and infilling, bringing with it more people, stretched services, and the destruction of whole communities. That is a common enough complaint, but it is genuinely felt.
When I discussed the matter with Croydon's planning officer, Mr. Coombs, he confirmed that one of the major concerns of Croydon councillors is that in the past few years there has been a sometimes dramatic, usually gradual, but always continuing change in the character of the borough brought about by development—a change for the worse.
Pressures on the planning authority are building up, so I tabled a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, asking how many planning applications were received by the London borough of Croydon in the last 10 years, how many were granted, how many were the subject of appeals, and how many appeals were allowed and refused. My right hon. Friend replied that applications under section 29 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 had risen from 2,101 in 1983–84 to 2,456 in 1987–88. The number of planning appeals under sections 35 and 36 of that Act had risen from 79 in 1984–85 to 136 in 1987–88. Significantly, in 1974, of the 79 appeals made that year, 47 were dismissed, but in 1987–88, only 67 of the 136 appeals made that year were dismissed. That strongly suggests that many more appeals are being allowed these days.
I acknowledge that the value of such a comparison is limited. The district plan adopted in 1982 sets out policies and guidelines, and is a major consideration in the determination of development proposals. Even so, Croydon, as with other places, no doubt, has seen a steady increase in the number of appeals allowed by the Secretary of State, and many members of Croydon council feel that their position in maintaining local democracy is to some extent being eroded by a combination of the advice, actions and decisions of central Government.
The planning officer's schedule of applications and appeals shows that the percentage of appeals dismissed by the Department fell from 77 per cent. in 1977 to only 48 per cent. in 1987. At that rate, within 10 years no appeals

to the Secretary of State will be dismissed; they will all be allowed. Whether this is a fair comparison and conclusion to draw is uncertain, but what is clear is that now almost more appeals succeed than fail, and the developer and the applicant are both encouraged not so much to ignore local authorities but to rely on the fact that they have a better than even chance of success on their appeal.
Local councillors feel, with justification, that their decisions are unduly influenced by the threat of appeal and the possibility of a claimant being awarded costs, because if the local planners make a decision against known Government policy there is a real prospect that heavy costs will be awarded against them. A recent application that came before Croydon was for a car telephone mast set on high ground within an area of metropolitan open land. Circular 16/85 dealt with telecommunications development. It says:
Planning Authorities will have to be alive to the special needs and technical problems of telecommunications development, and in many cases these will necessarily have to prevail over normal planning policies.
But should they? Sometimes, I think not. Is it not an unfair constraint on the proper planning considerations of a development, and is this not an example of a circular taking away the local authority's discretion?
There are also many instances when, on appeal, a planning inspector, having agreed with the council's objection, allows the appellant to introduce an amendment—say, in terms of reducing the number of dwellings—in an attempt to overcome the problem. This is a prospect not open to the local authority at its level, but perhaps it should be. There is concern that the considered decisions of the local authority are not being sufficiently supported by central Government—and all this at a time when pressures on local authorities are undoubtedly increasing.
Croydon's published figures for 1987 show that over the five years from 1982 to 1987 there has been about a 38 per cent. increase in the number of planning applications. There has been an increase in the number of appeals and tree preservation orders, all of which add hugely to the workload of the authorities. Despite improvements in productivity, there is bound to be an increasing number of outstanding applications.
When the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations were introduced in 1981, they included a concession for duplicate applications. A 25 per cent. fee is prescribed for the second application providing that it is lodged within 28 days of the first. The object of submitting duplicate applications is to facilitate an appeal on one, against a failure to determine within the statutory period of eight weeks, while still negotiating on the other. In these circumstances, there would be no point in asking the applicant to agree to an extension of the determination period. Can this really be right?
In the circumstances that I have outlined—the increase in the backlog of work, the time taken to determine applications, the reduction in the decision period for appeals, and the increase in the percentage of appeals allowed—developers have now been encouraged almost to go to appeal, and the practice of submitting duplicate applications has become all too common. In the sense that a developer can exercise his right of appeal against a failure to determine, are we not seeing an element of queue jumping? Many London local authorities—I am sure that Croydon is one of them—are concerned about the twin


issues of the number of appeals that are being allowed and the overriding of local planning policies by Department of Environment circular planning advice.

Mr. Roger Sims: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me, unusually, to intervene in an Adjournment debate. He is correct in what he is saying, and neighbouring Bromley is having similar problems. Does he find, as I do, that our constituents are becoming increasingly incensed at the fact that decisions taken by local councillors, on the advice of officers and residents who know the district, are being overturned on the advice of a single inspector based in Bristol?

Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend is right. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) are extremely active on this important matter on behalf of their constituents. Every authority has its own concerns, but a common theme is a desire for greater local accountability, possibly by increasing the status of local plans. Local councillors are the ones who are best qualified to decide local planning issues. Many of them have lived in the area for a long time, they know their patch well, and they have a great feel for their people and for the area that they represent.
All that brings me back to my constituent in Thornton Heath. She at least had local interests at heart, but others may be tempted by the grubby money of property developers. As a result, formerly attractive streets in north-west Croydon—be they in Beulah, Norbury, Thornton Heath or elsewhere—will be yet further damaged. A Government circular says that there is always a presumption in favour of allowing applications for development, unless the development would cause considerable demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.
Has the pendulum swung too far? Yes, the interests of industry, commerce and technology are important, but are they so important that they should so often override environmental and community interests? People in north Croydon and elsewhere are beginning to feel instinctively that the quality of their environment is deteriorating. They believe that local democracy is gradually being eroded. They have an instinctive feeling that, whenever commercial pressures and environmental interests clash, commercial pressures will win the day.
Unless we are careful, people in south London and elsewhere will face a very bleak future in terms of the quality of their neighbourhoods. I can only hope that today my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to offer some words of reassurance to the many people who are concerned about such a vital matter as the quality of our environment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) on securing this Adjournment debate and on the way in which he has made his points. He has demonstrated today, as on so many other occasions, his deep understanding of the concerns of his constituents and his diligence in bringing them to the attention of Ministers. I have listened carefully to the points that he has made and I understand his concern about certain aspects of planning policy as they affect appeals in the London

borough of Croydon. I am very well aware of the regional importance of Croydon, as both a shopping and a commercial centre. The council has made strenuous efforts over the years to encourage development, economic prosperity and the provision of jobs. The results of their positive approach are an example to many other authorities.
The council has kept abreast of changing trends. It has monitored its local planning policies and has adopted a flexible approach to planning control to meet changing circumstances. A notable example of this is the way that the Council has seized the opportunities for large-scale commercial and residential development on redundant sites in the Purley way area, encouraging retail warehouses and other developments to help to relieve pressures and congestion in the town centre.
I am also aware of the efforts that Croydon has made to meet housing needs and its difficult task in trying to meet development pressures and yet maintain an acceptable living environment that retains local character.
The pressure for development reflects the attraction of Croydon as a place in which to live and work and also the buoyancy of the local economy. Unemployment in Croydon is about 37 per cent. below the level that prevails in London and it is much below the national average. Those are some of the success stories that lead to pressure for development.
My hon. Friend addressed largely the density problem. At the outset I ought perhaps to put into context the density issue in Croydon. In 1981, population density in Croydon was 36·6 persons to the hectare. In 1987, it was 36·9 persons to the hectare. Although the impression of many of my hon. Friends constituents may he that population density is increasing rapidly in Croydon, the figures do not show that to be true. Between 1981 and 1987 Croydon's population declined by about 2,000—from a figure of about 321,000 to 319,000 in 1987.
The present greater London development plan identifies the desirable housing density within the greater London area as between 70 and 100 habitable rooms to an acre. It is open to an individual council to draw up a local plan giving more precise densities in different parts of its area, as the Government consider that density should be a matter for local authorities and not for national or regional guidance. I assure my hon. Friend that the new regional guidance for London will reflect that, and the rigidities contained in the previous Greater London development plan will be removed. The recently-issued policy planning guidance note No. 12 expressly states that a local council can adopt density policies. It is important that councils take advantage of the opportunities presented in that planning policy guidance note, which states:
Where authorities consider that the pressure for development and redevelopment is such as to threaten seriously the character of an established residential area which ought to be protected, they may include density and other policies in their local plans for the areas concerned. while avoiding undue rigidity. The scale and character of new development in relation to existing development are material considerations which should be taken into account in deciding planning applications, and the decisions of local planning authorities will be the more secure where the adopted local plan includes policies designed to protect the environmental character of particular localities.
I hope that the London borough of Croydon will bear that in mind when it prepares its unitary development plan.
My hon. Friend referred to helicopters being used by potential developers to identify unused land for development. There is nothing inherently wrong with that provided that they keep within the law. Development land is scarce, particularly in London and the south-east, and it is in the national interest that developable land should be brought into use. However, it is one thing to identify land for development, but it is quite another to harass the owners or occupiers of the land to force them to sell against their will, and it is not acceptable for landlords to harass tenants in order to obtain vacant possession. Nor is it acceptable for developers to harass owner-occupiers. My hon. Friend referred to one particular case, but I am aware of other cases of harassment on a much more severe scale in the London area.
I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the number of telecommunications masts being erected in line with the changing technology, and the problems involved in their siting. They were rarely required when the present town and country planning system was set up, but I believe that the system is flexible enough to balance the needs for the masts and for environmental protection. My hon. Friend quoted from circular 16/85 but I wish to quote from planning policy guidance note No. 8 entitled, "Telecommunications" which states:
Government policy is to facilitate the growth of telecommunications … However, the Government is also fully committed to preserving the national heritage, and the growth of telecommunications does not mean that the appearance of buildings, towns and countryside can be allowed to suffer serious damage.
There is no question of usurping the principle of treating each case on its merits or removing local authority discretion. However, we must recognise that telecommunications masts have different requirements from other types of development which must be taken into account in the exercise of development control. The purpose of the circular and planning policy guidance note No. 8 is to set out those special requirements and identify how they can be balanced with other planning matters.
My hon. Friend referred in considerable detail to the issue of a number of appeals being allowed in the London borough of Croydon. The proportion has declined from 52 per cent. in 1986–87 to 44 per cent. in 1987–88 to 38 per cent. in the nine months in the current financial year—a trend which, if extrapolated, could show that in some year in the future all the appeals will be turned down. Perhaps my hon. Friend looks forward to that occasion. He will certainly welcome the change in the trend, which is reflected nationally. Nevertheless, I understand that allowing planning appeals may be seen by some as undermining the policies of the local planning authorities.
There has, at the same time, been an increase in the rate at which local planning authorities refuse applications for planning permission. That has increased nationally from 14 per cent. in 1984–85 to 16 per cent. in 1987–88. The refusal rate in Croydon is even higher at between 17 per cent. and 20 per cent. in the years between 1984 and 1988. There was no change in national planning policies or in development plan policies that would have explained the increase in the rate of refusals. The Government have no wish to undermine the way in which local authorities carry out their responsibilities, but our inspectors must have regard to national policies as well as to local policies.
Planning is, to some extent, subjective and, therefore, it is inevitable that the inspector will not always reach the same conclusion as the local authority. Obviously, if the local authority refuses more applications at the outset, that may lead to an increased number of appeals allowed.
We should also keep in perspective the increase in the percentage of appeals allowed. Applications permitted on appeal represent less than 2 per cent. of the 390,000 or so planning permissions given each year. In Croydon it was about 2·6 per cent. of 2,050 permissions given at borough level and on appeal in 1987–88.
Some commentators allege that departmental circular 14/85 was responsible for increases in successful appeals. That is not the case. The circular simply reminds authorities of the general presumption in favour of allowing applications for development, having regard to all material considerations, unless that development would cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance. The principle is as old as the planning system set up by the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and the key words were repeated from circulars issued in 1949 and 1953. The principle was again restated in 1985 in the White Paper "Lifting the Burden" and more recently in planning policy guidance note 1.
Some concern has been expressed that the Department and its inspectors are not taking proper account of local plans in allowing appeals. That is not so. Development plans are a vital part of the framework for development control. They are not prescriptive, but provide a firm basis for rational and consistent decisions on applications. Planning policy guidance note 1 emphasises that, where a plan is up-to-date and relevant to the particular proposal, it follows that the plan should normally be given considerable weight in the decision, and strong contrary planning grounds will have to be demonstrated to justify a proposal which conflicts with it. That policy was reiterated in planning policy guidance note 12 and again the White Paper on the future of development plans, which was published only last month.
I appreciate the complex problems facing planning authorities. Throughout the south-east the pressures for housing on the one hand and the need to conserve the environment on the other pose very difficult problems. Decisions on whether and where to allow development call for careful consideration and the reconciliation of conflicting demands. The main vehicle for resolving them is the development plan.
Every inspector taking an appeal must carefully consider the development plan policies. That is one of the factors which must be weighed in the balance. An inspector wil need good reasons to set aside the provisions of an up-to-date adopted plan, and, if he does so, must give a clear explanation.
Ministers have said before, and I repeat today, that in determining planning appeals, up-to-date local plans consistent with national and regional policies will carry a great deal of weight. Although the Croydon borough plan was adopted nearly seven years ago, it is clear and succinct and remains a very important consideration for development control purposes. The council has regularly monitored development trends and the effectiveness of its plan policies and has made alterations to the plan over the past year or two to take account of changing circumstances.
The council in Croydon is therefore, well placed to prepare a unitary development plan. It would be well


advised to start work well in advance of the introduction of the unitary development plan commencement order. It should start work now on how to apply detailed density policies to the borough.
We hope to issue shortly the draft strategic guidance for London, and the commencement order for the unitary development plan process will be issued during the summer. Croydon will then be in an even stronger position to review its strategic policies in a way that takes account of the opportunities and needs of the area.
My hon. Friend made some other detailed points. He was concerned about the amendment of applications at appeal. I hope that he will agree that the development control system should allow a degree of flexibility to enable the developer to make his application more acceptable by introducing small amendments. That would normally be done only with the agreement of the local authority. The purpose of the circular and planning policy guidance note 8 is to set out the special requirements and how they can be balanced with other planning matters.
My hon. Friend is concerned also about duplicate applications. I agree that some cases that cause most concern are those in which an applicant believes that the authority will take more than the statutory period to decide his application, and then decides to appeal against non-determination as soon as possible. At the same time, the applicant leaves the door open to negotiate an agreement on the duplicate. That is wasteful to the

appellant, the authority and my Department, but it is understandable when many authorities decide fewer than half their applications in the eight-week period. As my hon. Friend will know, although Croydon has speeded up its decision-taking process, it is still dealing with only about 40 per cent. of its applications within eight weeks.
I do not doubt that, were Croydon to get near the national target, which is to deal with 80 per cent. of applications within eight weeks, it would find a dramatic reduction in the number of duplicate applications. The remedy is to be found in the hands of the authorities.
My hon. Friend is concerned also about costs. A review of regulations has just been approved, and fees will rise by about 15 per cent. from 14 March. There will be a further review this year and, given that there has been no comprehensive review of the fees scheme since 1986, it will give us the opportunity to look at the matter in greater depth, including consideration of my hon. Friend's views.
I hope that I have been able to put my hon. Friend's concerns in perspective. I hope that he will take comfort from the increased emphasis on local plan making, and I hope that his council will take full advantage of the new opportunities, especially on the issue of density, which is of such great concern to my hon. Friends who represent outer London constituencies.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Three o'clock.